Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Redundancies (Manchester)

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many forthcoming redundancies have now been notified to his Department in the greater Manchester area including Stockport and Irlam.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): Not all redundancies are notified to my Department, but notification of redundancies involving some 3,700 work-people have been recorded as due to occur in the Manchester travel-to-work area. In addition, some 4,300 jobs will be affected by the proposed closure of the British Steel Corporation works at Irlam.

Mr. Rose: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a gross under-estimate and, indeed, is less than the figure which he gave last time; that this is only the tip of the iceberg; and that many firms, like I.C.I. in my own constituency, are already preparing for more redundancies? Is he further aware that projections with re-

gard to the increase in unemployment show the most alarming figures for the North-West? What action is his Department taking? Is it making special provision for the mass redundancies—2,500 alone at Hawker-Siddeley—in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) did when there were only tiny redundancies to be dealt with?

Mr. Smith: I do not accept that there are the mass redundancies which the hon. Gentleman forecasts. These are the most up-to-date figures that we have. The services of my Department are, of course, available to help actively those who are made redundant. The question of other policies in that area is one for the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Orme: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will not do, and that in my constituency in Salford a firm is likely to close in three weeks, making another 400 people redundant? What action are the Government taking when a prosperous area like the Greater Manchester area faces a large increase in unemployment figures? Something must be done, and what the people in my area want to know is what the Government will do to alleviate the position.

Mr. Smith: The Government have already taken action in the Budget to restore business confidence, and this will have its effect. The hon. Gentleman must also be aware that at present the Manchester unemployment rate is still below the national average.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the great anxiety caused by the forthcoming redundancies, there are additional anxieties caused by misunderstandings and fears about the qualifications for redundancy payment at Irlam in relation to the B.S.C. pension fund? I have had representations about this from my constituents. It would be a great help if the Minister could find ways of clarifying this situation to remove these burdens of anxiety.

Mr. Smith: That is rather wide of the original Question, but if there is any misunderstanding, we shall be happy to look into it and try to help.

Captain W. Elliot: Has my hon. Friend noticed that it has been announced


today that 90 boilermakers, who have been on unofficial strike for nine weeks against their union's directions, have been discharged from Cammell Laird and that the firm has said that unless this dispute is settled, the whole works might have to close? Is it not this sort of thing that is creating unemployment all over the country?

Mr. Smith: Of course it is a contributory factor and a lesson, I am afraid, which some people have to learn the hard way.

National Federation of Builders' and Plumbers' Merchants

Mr. Robert Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what reply he has given to the application from the National Federation of Builders' and Plumbers' Merchants for their members to be transferred from the Construction Industry Training Board to the Distributive Industry Training Board as contained in their letter to him dated 8th April, 1971.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): I wrote to the Federation on 27th April to say that I wished to defer a decision until the completion of my right hon. Friend's review of industrial training.

Mr. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that what this important National Federation urgently seeks is not a transfer from one industrial training board to another but a return to the voluntary system of training which existed before the implementation of the 1964 Act, because it seriously believes that the implementation of the Act in the service industries has been counter-productive?

Mr. Bryan: The Federation has not expressed this view to us.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I had to consider the implications of the 1964 Act when I became Minister of Public Building and Works and that, even before there was any experience of it, we had this belly-aching from the construction industry? Would he consider publishing a White Paper about the history of this matter? I notice that, with the change of Government, all hon. Members are being pressurised about the Construction Industry Training Board, and that people are inventing ex-

cuses for transferring to the Distribution Industry Training Board. There is nothing very much in this, because the building and construction industry was threatened with being woefully short of apprentices.

Mr. Bryan: We are conducting a very wide review of my Department's manpower services, including industrial training boards. The results will be published in the autumn.

Mr. Costain: Is my hon. Friend aware that the objections of the so-called dissent in the building industry to the training board are because the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) did something as Minister of Works which led the board into serious debt? Has not that proved that the industry is probably better capable of dealing with its own training without Government interference? When will the report be published?

Mr. Bryan: In the autumn, as said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman. The rest of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is a little wide of the mark

Engineering Apprentices

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has made of the recruitment of apprentices in engineering, in the regions of the United Kingdom in the year 1971–72.

Mr. Bryan: The engineering industry has maintained a high proportion of apprentice recruitment in recent years. I would hope that with the support of the Engineering Industry Training Board this will be maintained in 1971, but it will not be possible to say until later in the year.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, particularly in Scotland, because of the economic recession firms cannot take their usual intake of engineering apprentices? Does he concede that that will mean a serious erosion of skill in Scotland and in other regions, which it will be difficult, if not impossible, to make up in future years? Will his Department, in consultation with the Engineering Industry Training Board, do something about it?

Mr. Bryan: I will certainly go into the facts that the hon. Gentleman has just


given. In general, it is not possible to judge the level of recruitment until later in the year; 80 per cent. of apprentice recruitment occurs in July and August.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman's reply was most unsatisfactory. Does he agree that in Scotland, for example, we have the highest rate of unemployment among the under-18s in Britain, and that for a young person under 18 trying to get a job for the first time in his life there is nothing more soul-destroying and humiliating than to be turned away?

Mr. Bryan: I am sure that hon. Members agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Although the level of unemployment has risen, I urge employers to maintain their recruitment of apprentices so that neither they individually nor the industry at large find themselves short of craftsmen in the future.

Mr. Orme: I was pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the success of the Engineering Industry Training Board. Perhaps that might be the answer to some of his hon. Friends who are knocking the training boards, which are doing such a magnificent job. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] The facts bear out what I am saying. Will not the hon. Gentleman encourage the Engineering Industry Training Board to increase the number of apprentices this year?

Mr. Bryan: I said that I appreciate the importance of the number of apprentices. As to the pros and cons of the training boards, the fact that we are having a wide-ranging review shows that a balanced view will be taken.

Mr. Moyle: Does the Minister agree that if those trying to destroy the training boards have their way, the number of apprenticeships offered to people in the engineering industry will be sharply reduced? Will not that mean a sharp contraction of opportunities for working-class children?

Mr. Bryan: That sort of question is getting very wide of the mark. The atmosphere in my Department certainly is not in that direction. The hon. Gentleman has only to look at the record of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see that he is not the sort of man who would countenance that sort of development.

Lie-Detector Tests

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will introduce legislation to prevent employers from conducting personality or lie-detector tests on potential employees.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Howell): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not consider legislation necessary. We have no evidence of the use of so-called lie-detector tests for selection purposes in British industry.

Mr. Huckfield: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has no such information. But is he aware that employers are asking an increasing number of very personal and unnecessary questions, that that tendency is bound to increase as one of the consequences of the Industrial Relations Bill, and that there are a large number of agencies specialising in supplying this very personal information, particularly on trade union activities?

Mr. Howell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is glad. If he has evidence of specific issues on lie-detector tests, we should like to know about them.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the interview situation every intelligent question is a personality test and every interviewer is a lie detector?

Mr. Howell: There is a certain amount of truth in what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Lipton: Have not most hon. Members, either at the hands of their local political associations or at the hands of the electorate as a whole, had to undergo personality tests with more or less moderate success?

Mr. Howell: That opens up far wider areas into which I hesitate to tread.

Unemployment

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will hold discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry to examine means of halting the increase in unemployment.

Mr. Bryan: My right hon. Friend is always ready to discuss employment and


manpower matters with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.

Mr. Molloy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scourge of unemployment is one of the most terrible things that can hit an ordinary family, and that it is because of the reversals of the previous Government's policies by his Government that we have ever-escalating unemployment? Will he ask the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. to meet him because of this grave emergency, and drop silly things like talking about entering the Common Market, so that ordinary folk will not be able to say, "Why are you talking about industrial training boards to train my boy so that when he finishes training he will be unemployed?"? That is the absurd situation about which people are concerned.

Mr. Bryan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government share his concern about the high level of unemployment. However, it is due not to present policies but to policies that were in force at this time last year, and we have yet to recover from them.

Dame Irene Ward: Would not a conference such as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) suggested be quite useful if the T.U.C. told the C.B.I. that it was prepared to accept the terms of the Industrial Relations Bill for the purpose of ending unofficial strikes, which create a great deal of unemployment? Let us get on with that kind of conference.

Mr. Bryan: The C.B.I., Ministers and the T.U.C. have an opportunity to meet once a month at "Neddy", so that conversation may take place.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are all extremely fascinated by the speeches which the Secretary of State is making in the United States, and particularly his statements in Washington yesterday that what he found so encouraging about the employment position was the growing number of identifiable redundancies, because this showed that a shake-out was taking place? Is he aware that what we find significant and extremely discouraging is the fall in the number of unfilled vacancies, which are 46,000 fewer than they were last November, thus showing that there are no jobs for the shaken-out workers to go

into? So that we may be absolutely clear about those statements, will the hon. Gentleman arrange for a copy of his right hon. Friend's statements in Washington yesterday to be placed in the Library?

Mr. Bryan: If that can be arranged, I will certainly arrange it. "Shake-out" was a word invented by the Leader of the Opposition some time ago. On the general question of unemployment, which is what the right hon. Lady is raising, it is acknowledged from this side of the House that the steps taken in the Budget cannot possibly have quick results. Such measures as the increased child allowance and the cut in S.E.T., which will help the expansion of the economy, cannot possibly have an effect before July. It is a gradual process, but we believe that we are on our way to success.

Mrs. Castle: May I have an answer to my request for a copy of the Secretary of State's statements to be placed in the Library?

Hon. Members: The Minister gave it.

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further action he intends to take to reduce the number of young people who are now unemployed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Careers officers will continue to make every effort to help unemployed young people find suitable employment. I am pleased to tell the House that my right hon. Friend has now made arrangements to pay grants for additional posts for careers officers in areas where unemployment is highest.

Mr. Cox: Does the hon. Member not realise that that will give no help to the 40,000 young people below the age of 18 who are unemployed and are fast losing any hope of entering into apprenticeships? Is he aware that as a result they could spend much of their adult life drifting from job to job because they have no basic skill? Is it not possible for the Government to realise that the young people of our country do not want the dole queues or the street corners—they want the right to work, and they look to the Government for indications that they will give them that right?

Mr. Smith: They can look for that with confidence from this Government.


The hon. Gentleman overstates his case, because although it is true that there are over 40,000 unemployed, there are also over 50,000 vacancies for young people throughout the country. This is a problem and something is being done about it, as I have announced.

Mr. John Page: Will my hon. Friend hold discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science with a view to improving careers counselling in schools and the status of careers teachers? Is he aware that that will help to improve this difficult situation?

Mr. Smith: That is a valuable suggestion, but the main problem for careers officers is not so much the school leaver as the less-able 16 and 17-year-old who has drifted around and had several jobs already and has fallen out of employment.

Mr. Heffer: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, while there is a serious problem throughout the country in relation to young people, the most serious problem is in the so-called development areas, where young people have almost no opportunity of getting skilled or any other training? Apart from the increase in the number of careers officers, what are the Government prepared to do to assist young people, particularly in these areas? Let us not have a quick statement, but a serious answer about what the Government intend to do.

Mr. Smith: The Government are already taking measures, through providing careers officers and through our other services, to deal with unemployment where young people are affected. We give all the help we can. The question of development areas is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but the extra business confidence which will be generated from the Budget, and which has not yet had time to work through into the economy, will eventually reap dividends, as the hon. Gentleman will see.

Mr. Raison: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what research his Department is conducting into the extent to which unemployment is caused by falling production as opposed to improved productivity or shake-out.

Mr. David Howell: Analysis of this kind is undertaken by the Treasury as part of the regular assessment of trends in the economy. The evidence available so far is that unemployment over recent months may have risen faster than the movement of demand by itself would have indicated. But the causes of unemployment are complex and it will not be possible to make a clearer assessment for some time yet.

Mr. Raison: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he give us, perhaps in the OFFICIAL REPORT, more specific details of the research studies that are being undertaken, in view of the enormous importance for future policy of knowing exactly what is the pattern of unemployment?

Mr. Howell: I will consider what can be produced for my hon. Friend. He is right in saying that this is important. Particularly important is the realisation that unemployment levels are no longer mechanically related to the level of demand, as some hon. Members seem to think.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: In the light of that reply, will the Government repudiate their fallacious theory that the cause of unemployment is excessive wage demands?

Mr. Howell: There is nothing fallacious about that theory. One absolute certainty is that excessive wage settlements put men out of good jobs.

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the latest unemployment statistics published by his Department.

Mr. Bryan: Between April and May the provisional total number of persons registered as unemployed in Great Britain fell by 18,736 to 755,091 and the percentage rate was down from 3·4 to 33 per cent. of all employees.

Mr. Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are now four people unemployed for every three people who were unemployed at the time when the Prime Minister said that he would cut unemployment at a stroke? If the Prime Minister is not to be accused of a combination of mendacity and cynicism, would the hon. Gentleman say when he expects unemployment to be at a lower level than


it was when the Prime Minister made his statement on 16th June last—will it be before the next Budget, by the Budget after that, or by the Budget after that?

Mr. Bryan: The words attributed to my right hon. Friend were, in fact, never said in that context.

Mrs. Castle: Yes they were.

Mr. Bryan: No wise Government would ever make forecasts in this field.

Captain W. Elliot: Would my hon. Friend agree that between 1964 and 1970 under the Labour Government unemployment doubled, and could he explain why they are so proud of the fact?

Mr. Bryan: As I said in answer to an earlier Question, we are still suffering from the policies of a year ago.

Mr. Concannon: Could the hon. Gentleman say what was the average wage of those unemployed, and does the hon. Gentleman think that they were being excessively paid when they became unemployed?

Mr. Bryan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question.

Industrial Training Boards (Small Firms)

Mr. Gorst: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now make a further statement about relieving smaller firms of the obligation to pay levies to industrial training boards, in the light of the review he is making.

Mr. Bryan: My right hon. Friend expects to make a further recommendation on this question when the results of his review of industrial training are published. Meanwhile, following his interim guidance, boards are increasingly exempting small firms from the levy.

Mr. Gorst: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I press him to say a little more about what progress there has been since the interim guidance of about three months ago and, in particular, whether he will name some of the industries in which progress has already been made?

Mr. Bryan: Since my right hon. Friend's guidance was issued, eight boards have increased their exemption

limits. The latest example is the Construction Industry Training Board which, in its current levy proposals, is excluding firms with payrolls below £6,000. This will remove 23,000 firms from the levy.

Mr. Rose: While we are awaiting the results of the review may I ask whether the Minister is not under an obligation to come to this House and to make an interim statement? Is he not under an obligation to tell the House that he overruled the unanimous view of the Air Travel Board with regard to travel agents, particularly the smaller agents? Is it satisfactory that he should tell the House by written reply about the winding-up of an industrial training board? Is this not just one more departure from one of the Prime Minister's promises at Ayr, immediately before the election, when he promised us a vast expansion of industrial training?

Mr. Bryan: In the short debate that we had on industrial training boards the other day the Opposition was outnumbered by 40 to one, or certainly 20 to one. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) was the only Member present on those benches—the only person interested. On that day I acknowledged that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had overruled the board in that respect.

Mr. Mather: Would my hon. Friend also bear in mind the claims of small transport firms, to many of whom this is a heavy burden bringing very little benefit?

Mr. Bryan: As I said in the debate—it was heard by one hon. Member opposite—the small firms will be one of the major problems which we shall have to study in our deep review.

Mr. C. Pannell: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that small firms in industry have as much responsibility as the larger firms for providing a quota of apprentices? Is he aware that one of the difficulties which I found in the building industry was that certain well-known firms have first-class apprenticeship schemes and the whole of the industry is expected to live off those. I do not see that exemption from the training levy is necessarily a progressive step.

Mr. Bryan: With respect, we are not talking about apprentices; we are talking about the difficulties of small firms.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the presence of 40 Conservative Members and of one of my hon. Friends is just about right and resulted in a very evenly-balanced debate?

Departmental Staff

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what increases in staff he expects to make this year in his Department to deal with unemployment; and what the respective figures are for each region.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The staffing system allows for adjustments—upwards and downwards—to deal with changes in volumes of work which depend on the level of unemployment. I am satisfied that sufficient staff will be available to deal with my Department's unemployment work this year, both nationally and regionally.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman not somewhat alarmed about the level of unemployment, particularly in Scotland, where we have over 120,000 unemployed, with a deteriorating economy? Will he confirm or deny the calculations made by industry and trade unions that unless the Government do something immediately we shall have over 160,000 unemployed in Scotland next winter?

Mr. Smith: Like the previous Administration, we do not make assessments of the likely future level of unemployment. Like the hon. Gentleman, we are concerned about the level of unemployment. He could make a valuable contribution to bringing down that level by discouraging his right hon. Friends from encouraging excessive wage demands and by getting them to talk demands down instead of consistently talking them up.

Mr. Tom King: Can my hon. Friend say whether any of the adequate staff in his Department are yet employed on the long-range study of the unemployment problem, referred to by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) who pointed out the ever-increasing level of unemployment which can be identified since 1955? Is he aware that there is a

growing trend which invites considerable concern over the future employment prospects, irrespective of the level of demand and reflation?

Mr. Smith: I noted with great interest the valuable speech by my hon. Friend on this subject. A number of my officers are employed on this and we are having wide-ranging studies on the whole question of manpower policy and unemployment. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, this rise in unemployment has been going on remorselessly since 1966 and this Administration will not be able suddenly to bring down the level of unemployment any more than the previous Administration was able to do so. The situation is now being tackled in a realistic way, whereas it was neglected by the last Administration.

Mr. Varley: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the increased numbers being employed in his Department are people who were previously working in the Department of Trade and Industry providing jobs in the weaker regions of Britain? Is this not a deplorable situation which has arisen?

Mr. Smith: No. We adopt a flexible policy and members of the staff are deployed where they are most needed. Unemployment will not be solved by having extra people to deal with employment placing. The primary concern of my Department will be to reduce unemployment by the correct policies, which the Government are pursuing.

Leicester

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now take steps to find work for unemployed people in Leicester.

Mr. David Howell: My Department's local officers will continue to make every effort to help unemployed people in Leicester to find new jobs.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if the Dunlop Rubber Company carries out its expressed intention to close St. Mary's Mills in my constituency, more than 800 more men and women will come on to the labour market, many of whom are highly skilled rubber workers for whom no alternative employment will be available


in the area at present? What steps do the Government propose to take to deal specifically with this worrying problem?

Mr. Howell: I am aware of the difficulties over the Dunlop Rubber Company redundancies, and I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern. In Leicester the percentage of unemployment is substantially below the national average. My Department deploy a wide range of services, and we will do what we can.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the unemployment in Leicester is in part the direct result of industrial disputes in the motor car industry, on which it is dependent for the supply of components, and in part due to lack of investment because of high taxation in previous years?

Mr. Howell: These are certainly two reasons for the present situation.

Procedure Agreements

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the provisions in the Industrial Relations Bill which enable a trade union legally to refuse to operate a legally binding procedure agreement imposed upon the union and its membership against their will.

Mr Dudley Smith: The Bill contains no such provision.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware of the provisions in the Industrial Relations Bill which impose procedure agreements on trade unionists against their will? Has he read the speech of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in New York earlier this week, in which he put our strike record in a much truer perspective than he has done in this country? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that speech clearly indicates that there is no need for the Government to make such an absurd proposition in the Bill?

Mr. Smith: No, Sir, I will not accept that. My right hon. Friend made a very good speech, reiterating many things which he has said in the House. The hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous attender at our debates on the Bill, and he knows full well that this imposed procedure is only for exceptional cases and as a last remedy after a great deal of conciliation.

Mr. Tom King: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the last supplementary question is yet another example of the distortion to which my right hon. Friend is exposed, and that this procedure would be invoked only in the most intractable and difficult situation when all other reasonable measures included in the Bill had been pursued?

Mr. Smith: Yes, but my right hon. Friend, fortunately, is more than capable of dealing with such distortions.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been fascinated to hear of the right hon. Gentleman in the United States correcting some of the distortions which he and his hon. Friends have been busily spreading about our strike record as a justification for the introduction of the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman said in the United States that to give the impression that British industrial relations are diseased—which is a favourite word of hon. Gentlemen opposite—is to give a wildly inaccurate impression. May a copy of this speech be placed in the Library so that we on this side, in particular, may enjoy reading it?

Mr. Smith: Yes, certainly; if it is possible, it will be placed in the Library. I am amazed at the right hon. Lady's nerve in asking such a question, in view of the supine attitude which she adopted when she was trying to put through legislation on industrial relations.

Government Training Centres

Mr. Adam Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of people who have passed through government training centres in the last 12 months; what are the expected numbers for the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement on his industrial training policy.

Mr. Bryan: 15,800 completed courses in the 12 months up to March, 1971, and the estimate for the next year is 17,000 or more. We shall continue to expand Government training facilities.

Mr. Butler: I welcome this increase in numbers, but does not my hon. Friend agree that this is still a small proportion of the total labour force? Will he not consider making available some of the energies and facilities of the industrial


training boards for the improvement of Government training centres?

Mr. Bryan: Despite the great expansion there has been over the last years in Government training centres, they still represent a small proportion of the labour force. In an announcement made by my right hon. Friend on 4th November, he said that the number of training places with G.T.C.s would be increased by a further 2,000. This brings the places up to 14,000 by 1975, which means that the output in a full year will be about 20,000.

Huddersfield

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the rising level of unemployment in the Huddersfield employment exchange area.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The main reason for the increase in unemployment in Huddersfield over the past year is redundancies and short-time working in woollen textiles. More recently, my Department has been told of reundancies affecting some 600 workers employed at a Huddersfield establishment making tractors. Our officers will continue to do all they can to assist those affected to find suitable jobs.

Mr. Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is an unsatisfactory answer, and that, since his Administration has been in power, unemployment in the district has doubled? Does he further realise that the firm in question has announced another 300 redundancies in the area? We want to know what he intends to do about it?

Mr. Smith: As I said, we shall do all we can to help those who are made redundant. Although unemployment in this area has gone up by 1·1 percentage points over the past year, fortunately it is still well below the national average. There has been recently a good deal of improvement in the short-time working in the wool industry, which is encouraging.

Industrial Disputes

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many new industrial disputes have been recorded for the months of February, March and

April, 1971 as compared with the same period in 1970.

Mr. Bryan: Official statistics relate to industrial disputes which result in stoppages of work. The provisional total of stoppages which began in the months of February, March and April, 1971 is 480, compared with 1,305 in the corresponding period in 1970.

Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend aware that these dramatic changes and this steep drop show that the Government's policies are beginning to affect the disease of wildcat strikes? Does my hon. Friend also agree that this happy situation is probably due to the influence of the Industrial Relations Bill, although it is not yet an Act?

Mr. Bryan: I agree that the figures are greatly improved and, therefore, satisfactory to that extent. On the other hand, I prefer not to come to a conclusion on the strength of three months' records.

Mr. Heffer: On the strength of that answer, is not the hon. Gentleman wise not to come to a conclusion? Is it not a fact that the number of days lost during the first quarter of this year was five times more than the days lost in the first quarter of the previous year under the Labour Government? Is not the Government putting forward a strange philosophy in suggesting that long strikes involving whole works, such as Ford, may be less damaging to the country than a series of unofficial strikes?

Mr. Bryan: In this case, once again I am not willing to come down, on the basis of these few figures, to the question of cause and effect. Of course we acknowledge the information that the hon. Gentleman has given, but four-fifths of the days lost were due to the postal strike and the Ford Motor Co. strike, which had a very bad effect. The general picture in the country still indicates a disturbing state of industrial relations and that our Bill is still very much required.

Amusement Arcades and Fairgrounds (Working Conditions)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will introduce regulations to cover working conditions in amusement arcades and fairgrounds for seasonal workers at seaside


and other resorts; and whether he is satisfied with the existing working conditions.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Any legislation in this field must await the Report of the Committee on Safety and Health at Work now sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Robens.

Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the details of the case which I sent to him show that the Amusement Caterers Association have almost washed their hands of this matter? Does this not show a most deplorable state of affairs which needs urgent Government attention?

Mr. Smith: I know that there is a problem and I am looking at it, but it would not be appropriate to introduce wages regulations for this type of seasonal work. I shall be writing to the hon. Gentleman about this matter.

Electricity Supply Industry (Redundancies)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to assist persons made redundant in the electricity supply industry to find employment.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My Department will do everything possible to assist anyone made redundant to find alternative employment. The specific steps will depend on the circumstances but, where appropriate, will include interviews by job teams for employment ends and special canvasses for vacancies.

Mr. Cox: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer will bring slight comfort to the many men who have loyally served the electricity supply industry and who are being forced into redundancy. Is he aware of the bitterness felt by these men who are being forced out of work when at the same time an increasing amount of contract labour is being introduced into the industry—labour that is often paid at much higher rates than are paid to men who have been loyal servants of the industry for many years? Are these men not justified in looking to the Government for alternative work?

Mr. Smith: These redundancies occur in comparatively small numbers, and at present there is a guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies

during 1971. I do not think the problem is as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Sir H. Harrison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Central Electricity Generating Board does everything possible in this matter, that any redundancies are nearly always agreed and that none is forced?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Most redundancies have been caused by a productivity pay scheme which will make the industry more efficient.

Mr. David Stoddart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of proposed redundancies is not small but involves some 10,000 men, which under no circumstances can be considered a small figure. Since many of these people have served the industry for many years and have given good service, they surely should expect to receive much greater consideration not only from their employers but also from the Government, who have been encouraging better productivity in the electricity supply industry?

Mr. Smith: I maintain that it is a comparatively small problem. In fact, between January and April this year there were 170 redundancies.

Dame Irene Ward: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that this sort of atmosphere causes much anxiety among men who, as they grow older, should not be expected to face such a situation? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the machinery in the C.E.G.B. for consultation between management and men, and, indeed, the whole caboodle of what goes on in this sphere, works satisfactorily? It is surely important to give men who have given good service a feeling that their difficulties are appreciated, and surely the industry owes them fair treatment.

Mr. Smith: Yes, of course. The better the consultation, the better the industrial relations. But I am reasonably satisfied that the arrangements in this industry are good.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Rose: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to arrange a conference of European Heads of State on the subject of human rights.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir. There are already many opportunities for international discussions of Human Rights. A Parliamentary Conference on Human Rights is to be held under the auspices of the Council of Europe in Vienna next October.

Mr. Rose: Does the Prime Minister accept that if the concept of a European Europe is to mean anything at all, it must be a free and democratic Europe, and does he not agree that from the Pyrenees to the Parthenon, from Latvia to Leningrad, political, religious and ethnic minorities are being persecuted in parts of Europe? Does he not think that he should take the initiative in view of M. Pompidou's decision last week to send Basque refugees away from the Basque area of France and President Podgorny's attitude on the continued show trials which are being conducted in the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that certain countries are not covered by the European Convention of Human Rights, for reasons which he indicated. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I took up the question of Soviet Jews with Mr. Gromyko when he was in this country last October, as, indeed, did the previous Administration in their period of office. Since then we have taken whatever opportunities have been offered us, including those at the United Nations, to make representations of a general character on this subject. I am prepared to look into the other questions which the hon. Member raised.

Mr. Waddington: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us find it difficult to square the genuine and obvious interest shown by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) in human rights with his reluctance to support the Government in their attempts to honour the universal Declaration on Human Rights, by stopping a system which obliges people to join organisations against their will?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's point is a matter for him to sort out with the hon. Gentleman. On human rights in general, Her Majesty's Government have always given this matter very strong support.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION (SECURITY)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what interim steps he has taken to improve security within all Departments pending the findings of the full inquiry into these matters.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave on Tuesday to a Question from the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield).—[Vol. 818, c. 230–1.]

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that there is a continuing process in attempting to improve security in Government Departments, and will he be able to come to the House in the near future to say what are the findings of the committee of inquiry and whether, in the meantime, Government Departments are any less leaky than they have been in the past few months?

The Prime Minister: I will not comment on the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Obviously it will be covered by the statement that I shall make later about police inquiries as well as the inquiries that the Government have made.
There were three main Departments which kept personal confidential information. They had standing instructions under the last Government, and these were renewed by this Administration when we came to office. They have again been reinforced with those Departments, and they have been extended to all other Departments so that every Government Department is effectively covered by the instructions.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL LEGAL AID

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Lord Chancellor to the Scottish Law Society at Aviemore, Invernesshire, on criminal legal aid on 9th May, 1971 represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: In this speech my noble and learned Friend expressed certain views, based on his own experience as an advocate, of the operation of the


present provisions for legal aid in criminal proceedings. He emphasised that any departure from these provisions would require very careful consideration and wide consultation.

Mr. Davis: Is the Prime Minister aware that that speech has caused widespread concern among those practising in our criminal courts? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion was made that legal aid should be severely restricted, and there seemed to be implicit in those words that legal aid should not be granted in cases where an accused person was pleading guilty? Does not the Prime Minister think that all this gives encouragement to those courts which are restrictive in their attitude towards legal aid and which very often refuse it where it should be granted? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that one of Her Majesty's judges suggested that what the Lord Chancellor was saying was that legal aid should be granted only after an acquittal?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that those conclusions can be drawn from my noble and learned Friend's speech. He referred to the successful way in which the Legal Aid Committee works in civil cases. I do not think that there is any great criticism on that aspect on either side of the House. My noble and learned Friend went on to discuss whether criminal cases should be similarly handled by the Legal Aid Committee, and he said that if there were to be any change it should be made only after consultation with all those concerned.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is there any significance in the fact that the Prime Minister did not answer my hon. Friend's Question about whether the speech represented Government policy?

The Prime Minister: My noble and learned Friend made it plain that he was expressing his personal view, which as Lord Chancellor he is entitled to do from his own experience as an advocate, and not as a Minister. My noble and learned Friend is perfectly entitled to draw upon his own experience and to put forward a constructive suggestion as to how legal aid should be handled.

Mr. Awdry: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that some parts of the speech

were rather unfortunate? Cannot the country afford to make legal aid fully available in all serious criminal cases?

The Prime Minister: My noble and learned Friend was discussing not how much legal aid cost but the way in which it should be handled. He pointed out that civil cases are handled by the Legal Aid Committee and that the system works very well. He went on to discuss whether in criminal cases the existing situation should continue or whether they might not, after consultation, be similarly handled by the Legal Aid Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEEP-WATER PORT FACDLITIES

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Scottish Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment with regard to assessing the potentialities of deep-water port facilities for bulk cargoes in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. But it is for port authorities to initiate proposals for development.

Mr. Douglas: Will not the Prime Minister concede that, if there were any question of activity at Foulness going beyond an airport and including industrial development and port facilities, it would be valuable to have a report, and for it to be debated in the House? Secondly, can the Prime Minister confirm the impression given in the House yesterday by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that we are likely to have an ore terminal at Hunterston associated with appropriate industrial development?

The Prime Minister: If there were to be proposals of this kind for Foulness as an extension of the development of an airport, obviously they would have to have planning permission. In certain circumstances, if they were to be alongside a third London airport, they would have to have the authority of the Department as well as a general decision on policy.
As for the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about Hunterston, he had to make a very difficult decision on both amenity


and industrial grounds about the oil refinery. It was the same decision as that made by his predecessor and, although it is a controversial matter, it has very wide support. My right hon. Friend went on to emphasise, on the other hand, that it was, as many of us who have been there know, an admirably suitable place for a deep-water port which could if required be used for heavy iron ore carriers or the development of steel.

Mr. Onslow: Reverting to Foulness, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no obvious compatibility between an airport and a seaport, anyway? Will he say from personal experience that any steps having the effect of attracting more traffic through the Channel would meet with very strong objections?

The Prime Minister: Obviously the question of Channel traffic would have to be taken into account. My hon. Friend says that there is no necessary compatibility. On the other hand, many people would hold that an airport and a seaport in the area are not incompatible and that this is a major consideration which would have to be gone into most carefully.

Mr. Lawson: Without referring to Foulness, does not the Prime Minister agree that it would be a great pity if this unique facility on the Clyde for taking ships of up to one million tons, if ever they came on the sea, in deep, sheltered water were left entirely to the Clyde authorities? In the interests of the nation, is not it a Government responsibility to see that the development takes place?

The Prime Minister: If the development is required, obviously it will have to be referred to the Government. The method of its development, if it is required, is a matter which can then be discussed.

Mr. Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that the decision taken by the Secretary of State the other day, albeit a difficult one, was not related to the decision taken by the previous Administration on the Murco proposal? Is he further aware that there is a growing feeling in Scotland that the unique qualities of Hunterston are not being fully regarded by the Government? Indeed, for my own part, I fail to see what support the

Secretary of State had in his decision yesterday. There is growing feeling that he is not getting the support in the Cabinet that he should get in order to ensure the exploitation of what he has declared to be the unique qualities of Hunterston.

The Prime Minister: There is a full appreciation of the unique opportunities offered at Hunterston. That will not prevent it from being a controversial decision if a decision has to be taken whether there is to be an iron ore port or any steel development there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State certainly brought it home to his colleagues and to me personally by arranging for me to fly over the area to see it at close quarters.

Mr. William Hamilton: Dive in.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Does not the Prime Minister accept that the Government should take the initiative in promoting the concept of Oceanspan, especially in view of the increasing number of accidents in the over-crowded English Channel?

The Prime Minister: That is another aspect of the matter. The Hunterston proposals are concerned with a deep-water port, mainly for iron ore, though it could be used for other purposes. They are connected with the future plans for steel development in the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRUNEI

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Sultan of Brunei to pay an official visit to the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed the House on 12th May, official talks with the Sultan were held in London from 19th April to 5th May.

Mr. Dalyell: Do the Government believe that, if there were internal trouble in Brunei, the Gurkhas would not be dragged into it?

The Prime Minister: Questions of internal public order are for the Sultan's own security forces. The Gurkhas remain at all times under British command and British control.

Mr. Sandys: While I am not pressing for any official visit, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that happy relations of confidence are maintained with the State of Brunei, whose Sultan, and his father before him, have for so many years proved their loyalty and friendship to Britain?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Relations at the present time are happy and, as a result of the Sultan's visit to which I referred, an amending agreement has been prepared which it is proposed should be signed later in the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Eadie: asked the Prime Minister if he will now seek to convene a meeting of heads of Commonwealth governments to explain to them the latest proposals made in the European Economic Community negotiations that specially concern them.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There are continuing arrangements for briefing representatives of Commonwealth Governments after each round of negotiations at Ministerial level. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will shortly meet representatives of developing Commonwealth Governments whose sugar industries are party to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

Mr. Eadie: If the right hon. Gentleman should manage to meet the heads of Government I have mentioned, will he be more forthcoming and conciliatory with them than he has been with the British people? Is he aware that his attitude to the British people, reflected in the Common Market issue, is that Heath knows best and to hell with consulting the people of this country on this issue?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that it might be more appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to devote himself to the substance of the negotiations than to seeking cheap headlines. I know of no complaint by Commonwealth Governments that this Government have in any way failed to keep them fully informed throughout the whole

course of the negotiations. As I have already told the House, when we reach a point at which the main matters are settled, a White Paper giving the fullest possible information will be published and debated by the House.

Mr. Blaker: Have the Government's consultations with the Commonwealth countries revealed how many are likely to seek direct trading links with the Community if we join? Is it not likely that most will seek and obtain such links?

The Prime Minister: Of 31 or 30 members of the Commonwealth in addition to ourselves, I think that at the conclusion of the negotiations, if they are successful, some 26 or 27 will have trading arrangements with the Community either through association under Part IV of the Treaty or by direct trading arrangements.

Mr. Prentice: If the consultations with the Commonwealth sugar-producing countries show that they are dissatisfied with the formula reached in Brussels, to what extent are the Government prepared to take the whole matter back to the negotiating table to try to get guarantees in terms of quantities? If they are not prepared to do that, what is the meaning of the consultations?

The Prime Minister: The consultations will enable my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to explain in more detail the nature of the assurance which has been received in the negotiations.
On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, we must await the views of the representatives of the countries who are coming to London next week and consider what they have to put before us. As I have explained, we believe that the offer of association, which will enable them to join with the other associated countries, combined with the statement about the future of sugar and the joint interest which, in the enlarged Community, if it comes about, France and we will have as the two major countries responsible for associated territories, is a firm assurance about the future of this industry for these countries.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Arising out of my right hon. Friend's penultimate answer, will he identify the four or five


Commonwealth countries which would not have direct trading links?

The Prime Minister: It is unlikely that Canada and Australia will have direct trading links. It may be that Malaysia and Singapore will not have direct trading links. The offer in various ways will be open to the remainder if these negotiations are successful—I think that is the broad picture—either through association under Part IV or by various trading arrangements.

Mr. English: Will the Prime Minister explain the nature of the representatives who will be coming next week? If they are not at the highest political level, does he agree that at some stage a full-scale Commonwealth conference to discuss our possible entry into the Community, would be desirable?

The Prime Minister: The level of representation of the sugar-producing countries which will come to London next week has been left entirely to those countries to decide for themselves. It is a matter absolutely for them. I understand that representatives of the sugar-producing organisations in those countries will, in some cases, be accompanying them. That, again, is entirely a matter for them.

On the question of a heads of Government conference, the differences between the arrangements for members of the Commonwealth are considerable, and these have been discussed with the individual countries concerned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will kindly state the business for the week after the Whitsun Recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Whitsun Adjournment will be:

TUESDAY, 8TH JUNE—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: A debate on the Armed Forces.

Remaining stages of the Law Reform (Jurisdiction in Delict) (Scotland) Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 9TH JUNE—A debate on Overseas aid.

Motions on the International Development Association (Third Replenishment) Orders.

THURSDAY, 10TH JUNE—A debate on Welsh affairs.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Highways Bill.

FRIDAY, 11TH JUNE—A debate on a Motion to take note of the Report of the Littlewood Committee on Experiments on Animals, Command No. 2641.

Mr. Harold Wilson: While wishing the right hon. Gentleman personally an enjoyable recess, may I ask whether he is aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly younger Members with young families, are finding it difficult to plan their arrangements for the following recess? [Interruption.] It is a matter of very great difficulty for those with young children at school who want to plan a summer holiday. Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to indicate when he hopes these hon. Members and their families will be able to make such plans?
Secondly, in view of the strong feeling of the House expressed earlier in the week about the form of the debate when the negotiations in Brussels are completed, is he now in a position to give the House the benefit of any further reconsideration by the Government in view of the representations which were made from both sides on Monday?

Mr. Whitelaw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind wishes, which do not seem to be held by all hon. Members, but I fully understand, and I heartily reciprocate kind wishes to him.
Concerning his first point about the date of the next recess, I appreciate his right and proper point about hon. Members making their plans, particularly those with young families. At this stage, I must confine myself to a time-honoured and somewhat unhelpful reply: that the date is bound to depend on the progress of business. However, I recognise the importance of the point.
On his second point, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in answer to a Question on Tuesday, it is impossible to forecast when a White


Paper on the result of the negotiations can be published. At this stage, therefore, no decision can be taken about the timing of debates in this House. I will, however, undertake that before any decision is taken there will continue to be the fullest possible consultation.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we naturally understand that it is impossible to forecast the date of the conclusion of the negotiations? Certainly no one on this side of the House is pressing the Government to rush the negotiations in order that the matter can be debated at any particular time. Indeed, we have always taken the other point of view, which may be wrong, that it is more important to get the right terms than to get quick terms. In these circumstances, is he aware that, whenever the White Paper is published, it is essential that the House and the country should have adequate time to consider it before there is a debate? The later the publication of the White Paper the more difficult that becomes, unless the Government clearly understand that the House ought not to be asked for a decision until the autumn when there has been adequate consideration by constituencies and then by hon. Members in consultation with their constituents.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance, because we must have continuing consultation, but would it not help if some Ministers would stop indicating various bright ideas of their own which cause a great deal of unsettlement and concern because of the feeling that the Government have already made up their mind?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I am grateful, because it helps me to know his feelings on this matter. [Laughter.] I did not mean that to be funny in any way. I am sorry that it was taken in that way. I suppose that I am funny when I do not mean to be and not funny when I try to be. I should like to make one thing absolutely clear, as I did in my original answer to the right hon. Gentleman. No decision has been taken. Therefore, any speculation about decisions is purely speculation. When a decision on this matter has been taken, after the fullest consultation, it will be announced to the House. Therefore, any other comments

or anything else are purely speculation at this stage, and must remain so until we know when a White Paper can be published, have the consultations and decide how best the whole matter can be handled in this House.

Captain W. Elliot: As regards the debate on Tuesday on the Armed Forces, what form will it take? Is it at the request of the Opposition, or is it on the Adjournment?

Mr. Whitelaw: The debate will be on the Adjournment. I would remind the House of what we have been trying to do about Service debates this year. In the past, there has always been a complaint that they were grouped far too closely together. This is, of course, the fourth day. In the past, there have normally been up to three hours, in theory at any rate, on each of the Forces. It was hoped that it would be better not to group them together but to have them later throughout the year and, therefore, to have a gap between them. We have tried this. I am not sure whether the House likes it or not. If it does not like it, it can go back to old procedure another year. This is simply the fourth day on the Service Votes, which used in the past to be grouped together.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the right hon. Gentleman fully seized of the idea that when the decision has to be taken to go into Europe hon. Members on both sides want to have a plain vote based upon the issues at stake and that neither the dissentients nor the others on either side wish to be misled by voting on some stratagem or other?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. We can consider and discuss all these matters. I would only repeat what I said to the Leader of the Opposition: I read all sorts of speculations—sometimes even about what I may or may not have said—and all these are pure speculation. The answer is: no decision has been taken in any way as to how this matter should be handled in the House.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that some speculations are considered, both by hon. Members and by people outside, to be more authoritative perhaps than others?


In that context, has he seen the suggestion in this morning's Times from the usually well-informed pen of Mr. David Wood, and would he tell the House quite clearly that the Government do not intend to proceed on the lines there suggested?

Mr. Whitelaw: I can simply stick—this is the only proper thing for me to do at this stage—to the simple formula: no decision at all has been taken, there will be the fullest possible consultation before any decision is taken, and we cannot take a decision until we know what the timing of the White Paper is likely to be.

Mr. John Mendelson: Referring to what the right hon. Gentleman said, that people referred to statements which he is alleged to have made, may I take him on to the firmer ground of the exchanges on 13th May, when he was first asked about the timing of this debate? He then replied, both to me and later, more affirmatively, to the Leader of the Opposition, that he would consider seriously the possibility of a preliminary debate. Has he not been made to retreat from that position, either by the Prime Minister or by other combined political influences? Would he not now give the House a firm assurance that in view of the extraordinary constitutional importance of this matter, the House must have a preliminary debate before the Government come to Parliament to ask for authority to sign a treaty to enter the Common Market?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will not seek to repeat the words which I used then. I would be ready to do so, however, and I have certainly not retreated. Indeed, in the answer which I just gave to the Leader of the Opposition, I referred to the fact that no decision can be taken about the timing of "debates"—in the plural: I particularly used that word to leave all the options open. It is right that the House should leave all the options open, and that is what I did.

Mr. Fell: Following upon the Leader of the Opposition's questions, is it possible to help the British people by at least telling them that they will have time, after the White Paper has been published, to consider the issues in it before the House is pressed to a vote on it?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have made it perfectly clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry; then it is my fault. I will try again. What I have said is that the first thing is that we none of us know when the White Paper can be published. Until one knows that, one cannot conceivably know anything about the timings—[Interruption.] I do not see how one can. Therefore, I simply say that I have undertaken to have the fullest possible consultation before any decision is taken. If consultation means anything, it means that I will listen to all the views before taking any decision. I suggest that at this stage it is not wise to fix particular months for particular debates when one does not know when the White Paper will be published.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be confusing uncertainty about debates with a clear decision on principle. Does he not recognise that the whole House understands that neither he nor anyone can forecast the date of the publication of the White Paper? But does he not further realise that the Government are perfectly capable of taking a decision on principle, now, that there will be no basic decision by this House to enter or not to enter on the White Paper before the Summer Recess? Can he not take that decision? Can he not tell us now that there will be no debate in which the House was to make a decision?
Whether the White Paper is published at the end of June or the middle of July, it is still not long enough, particularly with so many people away. The right hon. Gentleman says that there will have to be consultations, but he sounded as if he was saying that the consultations will only be after the date of the White Paper becomes known. But should he not start having consultations now on the issue of principle, which a large number of Members feel—that the House should not be rushed into a decision before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: In my original answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I again very carefully used a particular word. I said that I would undertake that before any decision is taken there will "continue" to be the fullest consultation. I undertake that. From now on, there


will continue to be the fullest consultation. That is the right way to proceed, and that is what I will undertake.

Mr. Longden: Rather than leave the whole decision over until the autumn, may I, most tentatively, suggest a programme for my right hon. Friend? When the White Paper appears, we should have a debate to take note in this House, but no vote. We should then adjourn for four weeks, during which time hon. Members should go to their constituencies and explain to them what it is in aid of—

Hon. Members: In August?

Mr. Longden: I hope not in August, but if necessary, yes, in August. And then we should return for one week to debate whether or not we should go into the Common Market, giving time for every Member of Parliament who wishes to speak to this House to do so.

Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly note my hon. Friend's points, as one of the many solutions and ideas put forward. I will undertake that all this will be considered before any decision is taken.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call any more right hon. or hon Members, I would remind the House that the business statement related to business for the first week after the Whitsuntide Adjournment.

Mr. David Steel: On another topic, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to start the Report stage of the Immigration Bill? Does he think that it will be the week after we return?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall have to await a later time before I can give that answer.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of what you just said, Mr. Speaker, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that we shall not be asked to take a final decision in the first week after we return from the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: When the House debates this matter after the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that there is here a certain number of fences which can be sat on by right hon. and hon. Members?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think the best reply I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman is that I have noted his remarks.

Mr. Sandys: Is it not rather significant that the opponents of Britain's entry into the Common Market are concentrating more and more on the question of timing rather than on the basic issues involved?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a matter for them rather than for me to explain.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Leader of the House, in answering that question from his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), be fair to all hon. Members, be they for or against? As far as I know, the position of all hon. Members is that they are waiting to see what terms emerge from the negotiations. That was the position as stated in the manifesto of hon. Gentlemen opposite at the last election, on which they secured election. It was the position of the former Labour Government; and when I said that it was my position last week the Home Secretary agreed with me. May we be told if there is an occupant of the Front Bench opposite who does not take that position?

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point with which no hon. Member will wish to argue.

Mr. Coleman: Considering what Mr. Speaker said about business after the Recess, may I ask the Leader of the House, concerning the Welsh debate, for an assurance that the White Paper on Welsh matters will be available in adequate time for hon. Members to discuss it in the debate? What arrangements will be made to ensure that the document is in the hands of hon. Members in time?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been anxious to make sure that the White Paper is available as long as possible before the debate on Welsh affairs, I have today been in touch with those concerned and I have been able to arrange for the White Paper to be published on Friday, 4th June. It will be available at the Welsh Office in Cardiff on that day. Copies will be sent to all Welsh hon. Members, who should receive them on the Saturday.

Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the extraordinary increase in price of the marine services of the Board of Trade? Will he ask somebody


during the recess to find out why this has happened? Does he think that I will be in order in speaking on this subject in the Service debate which will take place on the day we return?

Mr. Whitelaw: The answer to the first part of that question is that I will certainly call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to my hon. Friend's remarks. The answer to the second part is that she will know, from her long experience here, that that is a matter for Mr. Speaker and not for me.

Mr. Jay: To avoid more of the speculation of which the right hon. Gentleman complains, will the Government be making a clear announcement in the next parliamentary week about just how they propose to consult the British electorate on the important matter of the Government's Common Market policy?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have undertaken all along that there will be the fullest consultation before we make any decision as to how to handle these matters in Parliament, and that must depend on the progress of the negotiations and the timing of the White Paper.

Mr. Money: Early in the Session my right hon. Friend was good enough to say that he would consider providing a chance for a debate to take place on the recommendations of the Ashby Committee on pollution. Can he give a further indication on this issue?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid that I cannot give a further indication about consideration of that report. I have been able to satisfy those who have been pressing me for a debate on the Little-wood Report, and that will occur the week after next. Those who have been pressing me for a debate on overseas aid may perhaps regard that as a useful precedent, though it is dangerous to believe in it too far in respect of other reports.

Mr. Heffer: Would the Leader of the House answer four brief questions? First, when will the names of the members of the committee which will inquire into so-called top salaries be announced? [Interruption.] They are bottom salaries as far as I am concerned. Secondly, when will we debate the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board? Thirdly, to help

him with his timetable, may I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman drops the Industrial Relations Bill, so enabling us to get away for August?
Fourthly, returning to what has been said about the need for a debate and full consultation before any decision is taken about our entry into the Common Market, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members, irrespective of whether they are for or against entry, are suspicious because the right hon. Gentleman will not give a firm assurance that no decision will be reached before the Summer Recess?
May we have a clear assurance that no decision of this House will be sought and that hon. Members will have ample opportunity to consult their constituents to the fullest degree and test their feelings in this matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how essential it is that the British people as a whole are asked for their opinions on this momentous decision?

Mr. Whitelaw: The answer to the first part of that question is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is today announcing the names of Lord Boyle's review body. They will be able to start work immediately on Ministers' and hon. Members" salaries. The answer to the second part, about the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, is that the Bill is still before an Opposed Bill Committee. The answer to the third part, about withdrawing the Industrial Relations Bill, is "No". The answer to the fourth part is that there is no need for suspicion. I have given a clear assurance that there will be the fullest consultation before any decision is taken, and I stand by that.

Mrs. Castle: Further to my hon. Friend's question about the Industrial Relations Bill, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to indicate when he expects to get that Measure back from the House of Lords?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is not something within my control. Indeed, I suspect that the right hon. Lady may have a better idea than I have about what is likely to happen in this context.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

HUMBER BRIDGE

Mr. James Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were kind enough to allow me to put a question to the Leader of the House yesterday about the need for a statement on the Humber Bridge. With his usual courtesy, the right hon. Gentleman told me:
However, I shall make investigations. If he asks me tomorrow during Business Questions I shall give him the best answer that I can".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 388.]
Later—and you have in your possession, Mr. Speaker, the Answers to two Questions which I have given you—I was told that I had better look to find the answer to my Question in Written Answers to Questions asked by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). If the Minister, who is an efficient right hon. Gentleman, had stood up at Question Time and said in answer to me, "If you look later in the day you will find the answer you want," he would have been termed, in slang, a "Charlie".
While I do not wish to accuse anybody of arrogance, the Minister showed, to put it lightly, a certain insensitivity towards the etiquette of the House and hon. Members who represent Kingston upon Hull.
I hope that the Leader of the House will convey to his colleague the deep feelings which exist on this issue, and particularly about the cavalier way in which the Secretary of State for the Environment dismissed our Questions in a most unsatisfactory fashion. We feel very keenly about this.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to support what my hon. Friend said. An important point is at issue here, and that is why my hon. Friend tabled his Question for Oral Answer last Thursday. I tabled my Question for Oral Answer last Monday, within the time allowed by Standing Orders. The other two Questions went down the day before and were, therefore, printed on the Order Paper with an asterisk.
While I accept that it is practice on occasions for Oral Questions to receive

Written Answers, in this instance, although the Minister referred us to Written Answers, it seems possible that our Question could have been reached as Oral Questions because there have been occasions when we have gone past Question No. 50. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about our having received cavalier treatment in this matter. The Leader of the House will be aware of the depth of feeling on this issue.

Mr. Whitelaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may be allowed to reply. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I did not know yesterday—I am sure that both hon. Gentlemen appreciate this—that these Questions were being answered. If I had known, I would have said so at once. However, I immediately made inquiries and discovered the position; and I understand that the hon. Gentlemen were then quickly informed. I assure them that I appreciate their feelings on this matter and that I will convey them to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: As the matter was raised as a point of order, perhaps I should say that it is not a matter for the Chair. The Chair may have its own views about it, and these may be conveyed privately, but it is not a matter which requires a Ruling by me in the House.

Mr. James Johnson: May I add a couple of sentences, Mr. Speaker? Would it not be better if the Leader of the House, acting on behalf of his Front Bench and as a guardian of the institutions of the House—it would certainly be better received by my hon. Friends—were to say that this is not the sort of behaviour one expects of a Minister and that it is just not good enough to say to me, "Look later in the day, at half-past four or five o'clock, at the Answers to two inspired Questions," planted the night before by his colleague in the Cabinet?
It is not good enough. He should forget who his colleagues are and say that this is not the way to do things. Knowing the right hon. Gentleman fairly well, I beg of him to do this now out of natural courtesy towards hon. Members.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not wish to prolong this matter, and I quite accept what


the two hon. Gentlemen say. But I think that they ask me to go a little further than I wish to at this stage. I am entitled to look into all the circumstances and to choose my own methods of protecting all Members of the House, which is my duty.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that I have written to his hon. Friend the Minister of State, asking him if he would be good enough further to consider the Answer which he gave the week before. When I asked him to let me know when he might make a statement so that I could put down a Question at the proper time, I had no reply from the Minister concerned.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Dr. Gilbert: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the very recent development in the treatment and handling of Prime Minister's Questions in the Table Office? Before going any further, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have no complaint whatsoever about the behaviour of the clerks in the Table Office, who at all times give hon. Members every possible assistance and are quite beyond praise for their diligence and good humour. The point at present is that Prime Minister's Questions have always been treated differently from other Ministers' Questions, as we are well aware, but the new procedure is not only are they looked at by two clerks before they can get on to the Order Paper, but also apparently—and this is the recent development—they have to be sent upstairs for detailed scrutiny to see whether any material in them has been dealt with in the House beforehand.
I am not concerned at all to ascertain on whose authority these instructions were given, nor do I seek to question the judgment of those who think that the Prime Minister needs more protection than either his colleagues or his predecessors. It is quite clear that he needs all the protection he can get. What I am concerned about is the effect upon the four o'clock bag. It now means that Questions for the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister alone, have to be taken to the Table Office much earlier

than they have had to be in the past in order to ensure that they get in for the four o'clock bag. As I am sure you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of the bag is to enable hon. Members to put down Questions between 3.30 and 4 o'clock, after the Prime Minister has answered Questions, to get them on for the next due date. This has become very difficult, if not impossible.
Would you, Mr. Speaker, therefore, please investigate this matter on behalf of back benchers to see whether you think that this procedure is justified, and, if not, have it scrapped? If it is necessary, could you take the matter in hand and see whether any other safeguards for back benchers could be introduced, such as, say, sending a special bag over for Prime Ministers' Questions an hour later by some other procedure, so that back benchers know exactly when they have to get their Questions to the Table Office to be sure of getting them in for the next due date?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has a perfect right to raise this point of order, but it is my duty to protect the time of the House and I rather deprecate it. A preliminary communication would have given me time to consider the matter to see whether I could iron the matter out, and whether I could help.
However, I have been asked to rule, and I propose to rule. I cannot comment on the substance of any of the Questions which have been withheld from the Paper because they have not been referred to me for my decision in the customary manner. If the hon. Member asks for this to be done, it will be, and I will of course consider them.
With regard to the wider points, it is the duty of the Table Office to satisfy themselves that all Questions are in order before they are sent to the printer. I have to point out that if a Member attaches particular importance to his Question catching the 4 o'clock "pouch", he will be well advised, in his own interest, to see that it is brought or sent in in good time, so that any necessary discussion or researches can be completed by that hour. I understand that it is the long-standing practice of the Table Office, dating from well before the present Administration, that all Questions to the


Prime Minister should be seen by at least two clerks before being sent to the printer.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Ordered,

That Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:—

Class III, Vote 2, Scottish Home and Health Department.
Class III, Vote 4, Scottish Home and Health Department (Civil Defence Services).
Class III, Vote 6, Police, Scotland.
Class III, Vote 8, Prisons, Scotland.
Class V, Vote 2, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.
Class V, Vote 4, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies).
Class V, Vote 6, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees).
Class V, Vote 10, Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry.
Class VI, Vote 2, Scottish Office (Central Services).
Class VI, Vote 3, Scottish Development Department.
Class VI, Vote 9, Housing, Scotland.
Class VI, Vote 14, Road and Transport Services, Scotland.
Class VI, Vote 18, Rate Support Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland.
Class VII, Vote 5, National Health Service, etc., Scotland.
Class VII, Vote 8, National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), Scotland.
Class VII, Vote 13, Social Work, Scotland.
Class VIII, Vote 2, Scottish Education Department.

Class VIII, Vote 4, Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland).
Class IX. Vote 11, Royal Scottish Museum, etc.
Class IX, Vote 12, National Galleries of Scotland.
Class IX, Vote 13, National Library of Scotland.
Class IX, Vote 14, National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland.
Class X, Vote 14, Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
Class X, Vote 15, Department of the Registers of Scotland.
Class XI, Vote 2, State Management Districts, Scotland.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Armed Forces Act, 1971.
2. Water Resources Act, 1971.
3. Dangerous Litter Act, 1971.
4. Motor Vehicles (Passenger Insurance) Act. 1971.
5. Welsh National Opera Company Act, 1971.
6. Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971.
7. Rating Act, 1971.
8. Fire Precautions Act, 1971.
9. Dunbarton County Council Order Confirmation Act, 1971.
10. Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, 1971.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House at its rising Tomorrow do adjourn till Tuesday 8th June.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before we rise for the recess, I should like to ask for a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on the question of Scottish unemployment; more particularly, on certain specific issues of which I have given his office notice.
My first point concerns an issue which arose at Question Time yesterday on the vital and crucial question of investment, and investment related to multi-national companies. I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, responsible for the Scottish Development Department is present—because I can put this matter simply. All I am asking for is a serious study among the multinational companies to give us not only an increasing proportion of employment, but also a very important chunk of the worth-while jobs we have. As to how investment plans and tax changes of the Government have in fact affected the investment plans of the multi-national companies, I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, and the Chief Secretary knows very well that there are many issues arising out of the tax changes, and it is extremely important that the multi-nationals are asked at an early stage how this has changed their investment plans.
I make no comment and cast no aspersions or ribaldry at the change in the system. The truth is that none of us knows yet. I ask for a serious objective study of this matter, and that it be reported to the House.
The second point is that there is a crisis—it does not need me to tell the House—in the electronics industry. Part of the crisis arises out of increased dumping, not least of micro-circuitry from the United States and Japan, and the time has come when the Government Departments involved, particularly Department of Trade and Industry, must look at the problems sent to them in great detail, both by Mullard and by Plessey, and ask themselves whether urgent action

is not required, because otherwise, as many of us know, a very serious unemployment situation will develop in the electronics industry, not only in Scotland but throughout Britain, and will not be averted.
My third specific question involves a particular factory, namely the closure of the machine tool sector of Plessey at Alexandria. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney) is present and hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly not go into the details, which are internal to that factory, other than to say that, representing many of those who work for Ferranti's, I am authorised to say that Ferranti's are very concerned that certain assurances that they thought they were given by Plessey's as to the keeping of know-how in Scotland and the setting up of employment in Scotland have not been honoured. I am not suggesting that there was a legal obligation. The fact is that Ferranti was extremely helpful in setting up the Plessey factory at Alexandria, and this creates a difficult situation.
It also involves the general principle of whether money which has been given out of the public purse, by the taxpayer, for the purchase of machinery in development areas can haphazardly be moved to a part of the country outside a development area. My hon. Friend may comment in detail on that, but it is the understanding of many of us in Scotland that the situation that has arisen in this factory is similar to that which arose at Fords of Merseyside with the transfer of equipment to Europe.
There may be good reasons for what is happening, but we ought to be clear in our minds about it because, as a matter of principle, it is wrong that machinery which has been paid for by the taxpayer for regional development purposes should be shifted elsewhere without a full explanation of what is happening. I hope that the Leader of the House, who, in a previous incarnation, was a candidate for the constituency of Dunbartonshire, East, and knows the area well, will comment on these urgent matters, the importance of which I am sure he appreciates.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Ian Campbell: In following up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West


Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I seek to expand on the situation as it exists at Alexandria. The situation is serious. Redundancies will bring the unemployment level among males up to between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent., which means that it is reaching dire proportions.
What we are faced with is not the normal type of redundancy, because only five months ago this Government-owned factory was taken over by Plessey. The firm was encouraged to go into the factory because of the rundown in the manufacture of torpedoes. The Government wanted a firm to take over the valuable factory, which had plenty of equipment, and make it a growth point in the area.
There were two sections to the factory, one which did machine work and was part of the machine division of Plessey, and the other a separate entity, on the electronics side, manufacturing Numerical control equipment for machine tools. My hon. Friend referred to the concern about the electronics industry in Scotland, and possibly in Britain as a whole.
People in the area thought that the factory would be a growth point, and welcomed the firm with open arms. Key workers were given new houses, even though there were people on the housing waiting list. It was possible to explain to them that the advent of this factory would do a great job for the area which had been running down. To get the firm to go there, the Government had to give it the most advantageous terms possible. This is not a small factory. It covers 500,000 sq. ft., and has, in addition, a large machine shop unit.
The situation is that by the end of August the machine shop will have been closed. Redundancies have been announced in the electronics section, and the firm has made it clear that unless there is a pick up in work, particularly in the machine tool industry, the end of this part of its business is in sight, but it says that the matter will be kept under constant review.
The firm is prepared to sell off the equipment which it obtained on the most advantageous terms, and I should like the Government to ask the firm not to move this equipment, so that an inquiry may be held into the whole matter. If the Government provide a firm with

valuable assets, they should at least try to find out why the equipment is being moved, and at what cost. They should try to discover whether their assets will be lost. The situation is fast approaching a local scandal.
This is a large factory, and I should like the appropriate Minister to consider reacquiring the factory space which Plessey will not be using so that it can be sold or let to other firms which can make use of the special development area terms that will be available. Unless a new firm comes in that is prepared to make use of this valuable space and the generous terms available in the area, we shall be faced with an extremely serious problem.
I should like the Government to think about the points that I have raised. It has to be made clear that, as public assets are involved, irrespective of whether there was a declaration of intent about employment, the removal of these assets must be the subject of an inquiry in order to make sure that this company has not taken the Government for a ride.

4.16 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I rise to express a measure of disappointment that we are being asked to embark on the Whitsun Recess without some more reassurance about the timetable for the negotiations in regard to entry into the Common Market.
In saying that I appreciate, of course, the difficulties of the Government in this regard, and the uncertainties in respect of the timetable, but what we know is that the next meeting at Luxemburg will, in any event, not be before 21st June, and that puts the earliest date for the White Paper at the end of June, and more probably early July. Even on that timetable it is quite clear that there will not be time for any decision to be asked for from the House if there is to be a proper opportunity for public opinion to manifest itself between the time of publication of the White Paper and the taking of a decision.
Against that background, one would hope that it might still be possible for my right hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, to give more reassurance than he felt able to give at business question time and tell us that, in any event, no decision,


in any form, will be sought this side of the Summer Recess.
I referred during business questions to the story in The Times this morning to the effect that the Government are proposing to mount a division in July to approve the White Paper setting out the terms of entry, and that that was to be followed by a second Motion in the autumn formally asking approval for adherence to the Treaty of Rome.
On that timetable, the House is bound to ask itself what would be the substantive difference between the two decisions that it was being asked to make because, if the White Paper is to contain the terms, then a Motion to approve the White Paper is a Motion to approve the terms of entry, and a Motion to approve the terms of entry is indistinguishable from a Motion to adhere to the Treaty of Rome.
I think that anybody reading that suggestion in The Times this morning must have felt a considerable measure of disquiet because, if that were to be the timetable and the procedure, it would be widely said to be an effort to pre-empt the decision of the House by taking the initial vote at a time too soon for hon. Members really to be able to absorb the full impact of public opinion, as their duty is. I use the expression "to preempt" because the phrase used in The Times this morning is to "manœuvre a definitive decision".
I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members, however deep and genuine their divisions may be on the propriety or otherwise of entering the Common Market, are wholly at one in their view that in this great matter the Government should proceed on the basis of giving public opinion the fullest possible opportunity to manifest itself. That is implicit, or perhaps explicit, in the Prime Minister's own dictum in May of last year that entry can be made only with the full-hearted approval of the British people. So I would ask my right hon. Friend if possible to give us the assurance when he comes to reply this afternoon; and if not to say he will carefully consider these matters over the Whitsun Recess with a view to giving a statement at the earliest possible opportunity thereafter to the effect that the Government will in no circumstances adopt the procedure which is suggested as their possible intention in

The Times this morning, but will fashion the parliamentary timetable in regard to this matter so as to give opportunities for the fullest possible expression of opinion by hon. Members of this House, and to give all hon. Members an opportunity also to register the impact of public opinion on the matter.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: I find myself in a broad measure of agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and would wish to add only one point to what he has said—that I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House when he considers and consults with others on this crucial question, this matter of principle, whether or not we have a vote of substance before or after the Summer Recess, should really take account of the fact that the opinion in the country is already very deeply disturbed, I would say even becoming angry, not only about the substance of what is being negotiated but the manner in which it is being railroaded through. People feel that this, the most important decision probably, that has been taken in this century in time of peace, is being taken, if the Government get their way, without any serious opportunity for the people of this country to say what they think about what is to happen to their own rights, their own political framework and their own economic destiny.
I would tell the right hon. Gentleman that as we disperse, if we do disperse, tomorrow he is going to make us all very unhappy that we are going to be deprived for a whole week of the opportunity of questioning him, of putting points to him, and attempting to stir him to what ought to be a very simple and very correct decision, namely, that there will be no vote of substance this side of the Summer Recess.
I rose to speak on the Adjournment of the House not to make particularly the point I have just made, but rather to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to another matter which greatly disturbs me, which I would be most grateful if he could bring to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, to see whether we could get a statement from him before the House


rises for the Whitsun Recess. I am referring, as I have done on one or two other occasions in the last month, to the situation in East Bengal. This situation, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, is certainly not getting any better. There are now a number of quite important matters and questions which I feel must be put, and to which we are entitled to answers before we disperse. The first, inevitably, concerns the question of refugees. His right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House, I believe on 17th May, that U-Thant was making a further approach to the Pakistan Government on the question of letting into East Bengal a team of international specialists to ascertain the scale of the problem and to make a report. We do not know what has been the response of the Pakistan Government to that approach. I believe we should know.
Secondly, I would like to know, as I am sure the House would, what response our own Government have had to the plea—and that is the right word—released by U-Thant, I believe on 19th May, for help and money to deal with the appalling problems of refugees who are still pouring across the frontiers of India and the neighbouring provinces, that is, from East Bengal. The numbers now appear to be of the order of three million, and the costs of maintaining them are bound to be colossally high. This is a very urgent and desperate problem.
A third question I would like him to consider is whether he has any information on whether the Pakistan Government can be persuaded to improve the facilities for telephone communication, letters and mail between this country and the various towns and cities in East Bengal, where many people living in Britain now have friends and relatives, for whose safety they fear and about whom they have had so little news.
My last two questions are, first, has the Foreign Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman anything to tell the House about the response of the President of Pakistan to the points put to him about the necessity for a political settlement, and the necessity for finding a way of reopening a political dialogue with the leaders of East Bengal, many of whose representatives were arrested at the beginning of these events.
Lastly, and in a sense most important: What is the Government's assessment at the moment of the incidents that have been reported on the borders of East Bengal between India and Pakistan? According to some reports we have read today, a number of soldiers have been killed in forays across the border. The right hon. Gentleman will know that inevitably the situation there is a very tense one and that there are pressures both within the Indian Parliament and in Indian society; and there are, of course, the old rivalries and so on of which we know so much, between India and Pakistan.
If these reports of which I have no firm or detailed knowledge are correct they suggest that the situation is getting more and not less dangerous, that the number of incidents and violations of the border have escalated and there is clearly some danger that these events might get out of hand. Therefore, I would like to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he requests his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to consider whether he cannot make some statement on these matters today or tomorrow.
I would ask him in particular whether he might again consider the question of the kind of initiative for peace Britain could take, either in association with other Commonwealth countries or in any other form which seems to be most practical and most helpful.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I should like to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a slightly different view on the Whitsun Recess. I do not think that the recess is long enough. Recesses are getting shorter and shorter because Government legislation is getting more and more. This is a time-consuming business in which we are all involved.
A Member's job is first as important outside this place as inside it. Members of Parliament require to do two things during the recess: they require a holiday, even if it is a short one—and most of our constituents will accept that we deserve a certain amount of holiday from time to time—and they also want to spend some time of the break in their constituencies learning points of view on various matters affecting Government


legislation. Clearly, with the short recess we are having to combine the two. This is extremely difficult, and either the constituency suffers or the Member of Parliament does not get his appropriate break. That is the first reason for opposing the Motion.
My second reason, which I think was touched upon by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), concerns the Common Market debate. My view is that we ought to have a longer recess so that we can find out what our constituents are thinking about the Common Market. The issue has been very widely discussed in the Press and in the other media—radio and television, and we need time to find out the reaction of the public. I do not take the view of some of hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite that we ought to delay a decision on this matter for a long period of time. We have been discussing it deeply for many months and on and off, for many years. It is time we arrived at a decision. We owe a decision not only to ourselves but also to the public and to Europe, and to delay it beyond a reasonable period of time would be a great mistake. When I say "a reasonable period of time" I mean that we should make a decision before we rise at the end of the summer. Because I take that view, I think there would be some advantage in having a slightly longer Whitsun Recess to spend some time finding out what our constituents think about the Common Market.
The Government should recognise that recesses have a twofold purpose. Part is work and part is holiday, and it is a mistake to cut down the amount of time we are allowed to be away, because that makes it difficult for us to do our job in the country as compared with the job we have to do here.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: I agree with what has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) on the Common Market question. The replies by the Leader of the House on the business statement today are bound to be profoundly disappointing to large numbers

of people who will continue to suspect that the Government are planning to bounce a decision through within a week or two of the publication of the terms. It is a great pity that we are to rise for the recess without a clear response from the Government to what I think is the will of hon. Members on both sides of the House and people on both sides of the argument that we should not be bounced in this way, but that there should be proper time for consultation, consideration and debate after the terms are finalised.
I want also to put to the right hon. Gentleman a rather different point about the Common Market discussions. There are some aspects of the subject that the House should be debating now, on which separate debates are overdue. That is why I oppose the Motion, because the Government must find time for some of these vital matters, preferably by dropping some of the items in their legislative programme. My hon. Friends and I could make some suggestions on that. Failing that, they should do it by the erosion of recesses, however short, rather than that the House should not discuss some of these vital matters.
I have two specific examples of aspects of the Common Market debate that we should be discussing, or should already have discussed, and which we should discuss separately. First, we should have a debate about how the decision is finally to be reached. When the Prime Minister answered questions the other day after his talks with President Pompidou, he assumed too readily that the normal processes of Parliament and the normal sovereignty of Parliament should apply to the decision, without any extra means being used to find out the opinion of the public. I have always held that view on every other decision that has come before Parliament since I have been a Member. I have quoted Edmund Burke as regularly and as enthusiastically as any other hon. Member. We have all quoted him from time to time. But this decision will be unique, not only because it is of such tremendous importance but also because it is permanent.
It alters the constitution of this country permanently, and if we sign the Treaty of Rome—certainly if we take it literally and our signature means that


we are signing with the intention of carrying it out—there can never be any reversing of the decision. In other words, the House will not only have reached a decision on which no political party had a mandate from the electorate, but which the electorate will not be able to reverse if they do not like it. That is what makes it so different from other decisions.
I voted for the abolition of capital punishment, although I knew that the majority of my constituents took the opposite view. I did so with the knowledge that they had the right to turn me out if they wished, and that if that happened in enough constituencies the decision could be reversed. Most other decisions could be reversed sooner or later. But the Common Market decision is unique, requiring unique procedures.
A letter from a constituent which I opened only about an hour ago sums up what many people are thinking. He wrote:
This is probably the most important and far-reaching question that this country has ever had, or ever will have, to decide, and I believe that the people's voice has to be heard on this and their choice upheld by way of a national referendum … this is a once in a lifetime event that requires special treatment.
I believe that my constituent is right, and that he speaks for millions of people.
With some hesitation and reluctance I have come to the view that a referendum would be the right procedure in this case. Other hon. Members have a different view. All that I am suggesting at this stage is that we should debate the question, and debate it soon. Indeed, we should have debated it already. We should not go into the Whitsun Recess without debating it. We should seriously consider the profound constitutional implications and discuss, as a House of Commons, whether we are prepared to consult the electorate on such a vital and permanent decision.
The other question that deserves a separate debate is the way in which it is proposed to deal with the sugar-producing developing countries in the Commonwealth. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made his statement recently it was clear that there was widespread dismay in the House that he had not persisted in Brussels with his original demand that there should be

quantitative assurances on sugar, that, having made that demand very vigorously, he then reversed it and accepted the formula which so many of us regard as unsatisfactory. The dismay at that situation was not confined to those of us who are opposed to entry. I have had conversations with hon. Members on both sides who support our entry but who were nevertheless profoundly disturbed at the way in which it was proposed to deal with this subject.
Therefore, we should have a separate debate very soon on this question. It must be a separate debate, because if it is simply to be discussed when the terms are known, perhaps when we have a debate to take note of the White Paper, inevitably it will be swept up with so many other subjects, and hon. Members who support the Common Market in general will speak in support of the White Paper and will not give full rein to their doubts on this subject.
It should be held soon, because the Government are committed to consultations with representatives of the Commonwealth countries concerned, who I understand are sending representatives to London next week. They should hold those consultations in full knowledge of the feelings of hon. Members on this subject, and we should be able to tell Ministers what we think about this. Above all, we should press Ministers on the point on which I asked a supplementary question of the Prime Minister today—whether there was any prospect that the Government, having had the views of these Commonwealth countries, would take the matter back to Brussels and demand quantitative guarantees.
The Prime Minister ducked that question, as he has ducked a similar question from hon. Members in the last week or two. He should be pressed on that point. Otherwise, these consultations will be not consultations at all but simply a process in which the representatives of those countries are told what the Government intend to do.
What I want us to do is discuss the future of some of the smallest and weakest of the Commonwealth countries—Mauritius, Fiji, Barbados and others. In view of our history in relation to those countries, they are worth a few hours of Parliament's time. It is worth debating how we are going to deal with


them rather than go into the recess without doing so. To fail to give proper attention to them would be a betrayal of the people in poor countries who are liable to be made immeasurably poorer by the view which Britain takes of its own self-interest at this time.
I therefore put it to the Leader of the House, that, on these two aspects and perhaps on other aspects as they occur—perhaps the New Zealand issue at the appropriate time—there should be separate debates as well as the wide-ranging debates which we eventually have to decide our policy on this matter.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In considering his timetable for the recess in relation to the decision on the Common Market, will my right hon. Friend give full weight to all the important considerations? The first, of course, is that already urged upon him—the need for us to consult our constituents and, in the very difficult circumstances of this issue, which cuts across traditional party lines and organisation, to make sure that there is a full sense of participation among the public at large in the decision.
Would he bear in mind, among the pressures upon him in this regard, that a belief in the supreme importance of consulting our constituents is as strongly held by those who are firmly in favour of our entry as by those who are against? There is certainly no monopoly of concern for public interest held by those who are against the decision. Some of them have been strongly against the decision, whether or not they have consulted their constituents, for many years, and have reached their hard-and-fast decisions.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House and both sides of the issue would agree that adequate time must be given for consulting public opinion, but that does not automatically lead to the conclusion that it must be after the Summer Recess. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the progress so far and the way in which the debate has been conducted on the major issues. The political decision has been debated between those who are campaigning for and against for some months now, and the political decision was clear last Christmas. The first matter of the terms, on

which the whole decision really depends, was the sugar agreement, which has been before the House for the last two or three weeks.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will reflect on the way in which the sugar agreement, contrary to what the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said, has been very fully debated and explored in the time which has become available in the House already, and hence has also been debated in the Press. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North and others, in the hour-long statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy on his return from Brussels, were fully able to put all their doubts and reservations to him.
Through the reporting of that, the issue whether the assurances obtained by him were adequate, compared with the previous position of those countries under the former arrangement, has been put before the House. The point has been made that the Chancellor of the Duchy got strong assurances and an offer of association for all the sugar producing countries, which should extend to other goods as well. This has been fully compared with the previous position under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which was renegotiated by the last Government to make sure that there was no continuing contractual obligation on this country after the end of 1974 and which rested on very vague obligations.
That term having been covered, and full consideration having been given to it, New Zealand and the transitional contribution are also likely to have time allowed to them in the House——

Mr. Fred Peart: Mr. Fred Peart (Workington) indicated dissent.

Mr. Clarke: I see that the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) disagrees strongly with me. Is he seriously contending that we shall be able to retain the attention of the British public by debating the issue of Commonwealth sugar from now until October? If so, I should be very surprised. He must see that there is deep concern on both sides of the House about the position of these countries and equally clearly a division of opinion between those who feel as I do—that their position has been covered better than it was before by the agreement in Brussels—and those who do not.
The idea that a debate can be conducted on that aspect of the negotiations for much longer is a little unreal in terms of parliamentary time and Press attention.

Mr. Prentice: Suppose the representatives of the developing countries who produce sugar come to London next week and—they should know their own business best—say that they are thoroughly dissatisfied with these arrangements and the British Government refuse to take the matter back to Brussels. Does not the hon. Gentleman concede that those of us who are anxious about this should then have a debate to make our views known?

Mr. Clarke: Of course it would be a matter for the Leader of the House and would no doubt depend on the extent of the dissatisfaction expressed by the leaders of those countries and the dimensions of the problem. But I have no doubt that the right hon. Members for East Ham, North and Workington would not hesitate to press upon the House at every available opportunity the views of the sugar producing countries—and quite rightly, feeling as they do. I should be surprised, given the scale of the Common Market negotiations and the several coming issues, if, throughout the whole of next Session and into the autumn, we were able to sustain public attention and concentration on this one issue.
In the end, the debate will not be decided by the heads of State of the sugar-producing countries. It will be resolved here, and will depend on whether, in our opinion, as the representatives of our constituents, the position of those countries is met. The comparison between the terms obtained in Brussels and the present position is already crystal clear. We have already expressed our views on it and I shall be surprised if the issue is sustained much longer.
I share the concern of hon. Members about the time needed to consult constituents so that they should feel that they have been consulted to the full, but they should bear in mind how long public debate can seriously be maintained on any issue, however important, in a responsible fashion.
We all know how long a three-week General Election campaign, during which

the public are consulted on the question of who is to govern them over the next five years, can feel to those campaigning. I am sure that no hon. Member would suggest that a General Election campaign should be made any longer than three weeks, because it would be impossible to sustain public interest beyond that time. The idea that public attention will be focused through public debate on one issue of the Common Market for three months at a time, while optimistic and taking a generous view of the part that we shall play in any issue and the part that the public will play in the debate, is a little unreal.
I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that the pressure coming from the other side of the House for the most generous allowance of time is related entirely to the laudable aim of consulting constituents and making sure that the public at large are allowed to participate. Both political parties are fully entitled to gauge political and party opinion in the manner they judge best. I ask my right hon. Friend to discount those views, if he thinks there are any coming from the other side of the House, which are based more on a desire to allow a Labour Party conference to play a dominant part in the final decision than on any wide concern for public opinion.
If the Labour Party conference is allowed to feature as a central matter in deciding the timing of this debate, because of the constitution of the Labour Party that is giving Mr. Hugh Scanlon and Mr. Jack Jones, and other wielders of large block votes, a disproportionate amount of influence in the debate on the Common Market in the view of many hon. Members on this side of the House. It is significant that hon. Members opposite, present now and anxious to press this matter on the Leader of the House, seem to contain a majority of those who in the past have been most anxious to allow the Labour Party conferences to have a dominant say in the Labour Party on various matters. I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind these matters and not to allow to be dominant in this issue tactical decisions about when a Labour Party conference can be held.
The other matter to which I ask my right hon. Friend to pay attention is the need to come to as quick a decision as is


reasonably possible, given the need for consultations, to avoid the unending delay in this matter. This is not a new issue. For eight years the political merits of going into or remaining out of the Common Market have been discussed. In my opinion the delay in reaching a decision, the fact that the whole problem whether we are to be in the Community has hung over our heads for so long, has been harmful, not least to public opinion. Because we have been rejected twice and because the issue, however important to hon. Members, has to some extent grown stale on some of the public, this is doing harm to our prospects, whether we remain outside or enter the Community.
We have to consider the need for proper consultation with our constituents and with our parties and at the same time the need to let the public know where they stand finally and decisively on this matter so that we can go into the Community now and end damaging delay—if that is to be the ultimate decision.
I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). We must also remember that we owe it to our European partners to attempt to reach this decision as quickly as is reasonably possible consistent with our duty to the public in this country. We have come near to the conclusion of difficult and complicated negotiations and there is a limit to the extent to which our friends can go on allowing time for us to conduct a mini-election campaign, if that is what is necessary.

Mr. Peart: The Prime Minister has committed the Government to a campaign of information involving considerable sums of money. Is the hon. Member suggesting, in view of the staleness of the public, which I do not accept, that all this money will be wasted and that we should not pursue this public expenditure? Would he recommend his right hon. Friend and the Government to call it off?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the sums of money expended by the anti-Common Market campaign and the sums of money expended by the pro-Common Market groups have not been wasted—and that goes for Government expenditure, too. This is expenditure that has been incurred on this campaigning for months.

It must be borne in mind that both sides have attempted to mount a great debate when we consider how much further time is to be given. We must distinguish between legitimate final campaigning and consultation and a desire to postpone the evil day, particularly if that desire is put even more strongly by that side of the argument which appears to feel that it is losing the moment that progress is made.
However much time we take to resolve the situation, I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear these matters in mind in deciding the timing of the Whitsun Recess and parliamentary matters thereafter. Let us bear in mind what we are keeping waiting in Europe while we debate, and if the decision of the House is to be that there are great opportunities to expand our political influence and to benefit economically from our prompt entry into the Common Market, we must take the decision and shoulder our responsibilities in this House as soon as we can. Europe cannot be kept waiting too long because of party political manœuvrings in this House.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: About eight weeks to three months ago the editor of my local paper, the South Yorkshire Times, phoned me and said that he had received about 50 letters inquiring about the state of negotiations in the Common Market. He asked me if I would write a piece for him, in two parts. Given that my general attitude had been known for some years, would I first of all present the general problems and quote the arguments as best I could of those who thought that this country would be better served by entering the Common Market if proper terms could be achieved, and then would I add to that the views of those who felt that the terms, as they were emerging, and as they appeared possible, would not be terms that they would want to recommend to the British public.
I did that. I first of all produced the arguments of those who, by and large, were in favour, not decrying them as people who would be prepared to recommend any terms and all terms. For the purposes of the article I suppressed my suspicion that there are some people who are prepared to do that. I treated the argument seriously. In the rest of the


article I put my point of view. I have since received correspondence from people pointing out that the article was all to the good, that it had started the public debate in the Penistone constituency area but that essential factors were missing.
They can emerge only as the negotiations proceed and produce some results. This is my main reason for speaking today and urging a definite course of action on the right hon. Gentleman. It is clear that, for the first time, after the report of the Chancellor of the Duchy and the brief references made to his conversations with the President of the French Republic by the Prime Minister, some of the outline and definite details of what have been for so long referred to "the terms" are now beginning to emerge.
Surely this creates a new situation making completely irrelevant the views of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) who said that this matter had been considered for years. He is on very feeble ground there, because he is undermining the Prime Minister's case. I hope that the Prime Minister will forgive him, as time goes on. It is the Prime Minister's case, as he has always put it to the House and country, that until the terms are known and he is able to present them, no one can really make any judgment on whether he should recommend to the British public, from the House of Commons, that they should be accepted. I prefer to address myself to the Prime Minister's case.
When negotiations are resumed on 7th June and continued on 22nd and 23rd June, and possibly 24th June, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have a great deal of work ahead of him. I put this to the Leader of the House purely on practical grounds. To start with, there is the position of the sugar producers. The Prime Minister on Tuesday of this week, in reply to a Question from me, said that next week the Chancellor of the Duchy will meet representatives of the sugar producing Commonwealth countries. For the first time the Chancellor of the Duchy will be able to see whether the grave doubts about the proposal, which have been expressed by the High Commissioners in London before the arrival of the more senior representatives from the Commonwealth

sugar producing countries, represent the firm policy of those countries. I have no doubt that the views already expressed by the High Commissioners will be the firm view of their Governments, but the right hon. Gentleman will meet the senior Cabinet representatives and be able to judge.
If the Chancellor of the Duchy finds that the results emerging from the negotiations he has conducted are unacceptable to the Commonwealth sugar producing countries, he will have to go back and tell the Six. I am not now on the formal point which has been expressed this week about whether the Prime Minister will say publicly that the Chancellor of the Duchy will have to go back and say that these terms are unacceptable. The Prime Minister may not wish to say this categorically, and I can understand that. Whether or not the Prime Minister says so categorically, our chief negotiator will have to go back and report, because he is publicly committed to doing so. The discussion will then start again, and we do not know how long discussion on that one subject will take in Luxembourg.
The Prime Minister has said that there are many other important subjects. The House has no knowledge of the attitude of the Six towards New Zealand. All the Prime Minister has told us is that he has discussed the position of New Zealand with the President of the French Republic. That is the second large subject which will have to be discussed in Luxembourg. All this time neither the House nor the British people will know what is emerging on these points.
Another large subject is the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the Community budget—as it is euphemistically called in the circle of experts. It means the hundreds of millions of pounds this country will be called upon to pay to finance the agricultural policy of the six Common Market countries. That subject has not been started on yet. I do not regard the Government as being so irresponsible as to rush these negotiations and, a few days after these major discussions, present to the House a policy and within a few weeks consider that hon. Members have had sufficient time to consult their constituents and be able to vote and commit future generations to this irrevocable policy of entering the


E.E.C. A historian reading this debate would find it absurd that there should be any hesitation in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman who is the custodian of our political procedure as to the answer he should give at the end of this debate.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is sitting here in loneliness, influenced by a political decision which contradicts the direction in which he was moving on 13th May when I first asked him a question about the timing. The most important question on this subject was put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to whom, naturally, the right hon. Gentleman's reply was more detailed and forthcoming. I understand that, because my right hon. Friend speaks for at least half the country.
President Pompidou made it clear in Brussels the night before last that there are conditions of entry. The British Press is reporting these matters badly, and will be called to account in the debates in the House which are to take place. To quote one example at random concerning the sugar agreements, I have a copy of Figaro—an eminent Liberal-Conservative French newspaper close to Government circles—which reports the Press conference given jointly by the Chancellor of the Duchy and M. Schumann, the French Foreign Secretary, at 5.30 a.m. at the end of the long discussions on the proposals for the sugar producers. Figaro reported that the Chancellor of the Duchy, when questioned on the significance of these proposals, said, "This includes everything that matters—quantities, prices, all the things that matter". M. Schumann was asked the same question, and he said, "This is a collection of many large proposals. It includes prices, diversification and other industries".
The chief political correspondent, who was present at the conference, commented that these were quite different interpretations of what had taken place in the long negotiations during the night. None of this has appeared in The Times, the Daily Telegraph or any of the most reputable organs of the British Press, which had headlines "Marching in", instead of addressing themselves to the task of serious newspapers, to setting out both interpretations side by side. There is much yet to be reported that will emerge. What

does M. Schumann's interpretation mean? It means a resistance to moving from the original condition that there must be no quantities given, and means no real assurance for the sugar producers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recall the topic that we are discussing.

Mr. Mendelson: I knew that one hon. Member had to be the first to fall foul of the Chair, but I thought that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe who preceded me went rather wide and I was trying to reply to some of his arguments. But I will remain under your sovereignty and jurisdiction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at any rate for the time being when we are still sovereign and you are our ruler.
The position is that in Brussels the night before last M. Pompidou talked about these things, clearly implying that in his mind they were conditions. When the broader picture emerges on these three great items and many others, there may be need for another meeting after 22nd June, given the importance of the subjects involved.
Then there is the question of the writing of the White Paper. I cannot tell my constituents that the White Paper has already been written, although we read in The Times today that this might be the case. That newspaper talks about "manoeuvring" and in another newspaper we are told that the drafting of the White Paper had already begun. I cannot believe that the Government would act so irresponsibly, and I know what their own supporters would tell them if that were the case. I assume that the Government have blank sheets in front of them and that as yet there is no White Paper, because nobody knows what is to go into it. They will take their time since this has to be seriously considered.
We shall return to our constituencies at the weekend and the process of consultation must be taken up in earnest. Surely the parliamentary process should be married to the consultation with the people. This should particularly involve the Government who have refused even to consider any alternative proposals as to the way in which the British people should be consulted. That is their decision. They are obliged to give


ample opportunity for Members of Parliament to consult with their constituents. I refer in passing——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I feel that the hon. Gentleman's timetable is running far ahead of the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Mendelson: Before I conclude my remarks, I intend to make some relevant points, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which relate to the direct consultation of my constituents. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe said that the party conferences do not come into the matter rather as if it was a dirty word. That is an astonishing doctrine.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Party conferences are unlikely to take place during the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Mendelson: That is so, but the hon. Gentleman referred to this matter at some length and made an attack on hon. Members in respect of party conferences. With respect to the Chair, the hon. Gentleman said that the annual party conferences should play an important part in the policy making of the Labour Party. I proudly proclaim that I am one of those people. I have always believed that democracy should play a part in our political system, and I remain of that view.
It should be possible to have a preliminary debate in which the terms of the British contribution will be known for the first time. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that no figures have been written into M. Schumann's proposal. This includes the sugar-producers' deal and the proposals on New Zealand, the importance of which I need not underline. All these matters will be known in detail for the first time. There ought then to be a debate over two, three or four days in this House on the proposals as they then emerge, without a vote at the end. The country ought to be listening in to that debate.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism as to how interested constituents will be. They have already shown that they are greatly interested and they will show their interest when the time comes. After this debate, we shall go back to our constituents and take counsel with the people in our areas. We should

take that counsel for some eight weeks to three months. We ought then to appreciate the expressions of opinion in our constituencies both directly and through all three party conferences. Then we should come back here in the autumn——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would remind the hon. Member that we are discussing the situation when we come back to the House after Whitsun.

Mr. Mendelson: Then we ought to be able to say next weekend to our constituents, "You need not worry about one thing because, whatever view you take over the many weeks in the summer period, you will have time to state your point of view".

Mr. Robert Redmond: Would the hon. Member accept that there are a number of M.Ps., of whom I am one, who have made arrangements to go on holiday tomorrow in order to get in our summer holiday now so as to be available for consultations later. Therefore, is not the correct time to take the Whitsun Recess that which has been proposed by the Government?

Mr. Mendelson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that most helpful point. It expresses the proper democratic sentiments of a good hon. Member of the House.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Does my hon. Friend realise that some of us, including myself, are not going on holiday this year, because we cannot afford to do so?

Mr. Mendelson: Before I get any more help, I had better carry on with what I was saying. At any rate, these comments show that the democratic process is as it ought to be.
The right hon. Gentleman's reply to this debate will give him the opportunity to discount the suspicions held by many of us when we see words like "manoeuvring" being used by the political correspondent of The Times. We see the idea being put about that this debate is to be rushed. Therefore, the Leader of the House should accept the opportunity to respond to the request made to him by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition during the questions on the business statement and give the House a


firm assurance that there will be a preliminary debate on either a White Paper or some of the emerging conditions of entry and the conclusions reached in the Luxembourg negotiations. Then after a period, such as the whole of the Summer Recess, there will be the first attempt, if the Government so desire, to ask the House to approve the entry of the United Kingdom into the E.E.C.
If that is Government policy, the right hon. Gentleman should give a clear assurance that there will be a preliminary debate and then the whole of the summer for consultations in the country at large. Then in the autumn, at the earliest, if the Government are of such a mind, they can consider any request for the House to decide whether this country is to adhere to the Treaty of Rome and enter the E.E.C. It is the bounden duty of the Leader of the House to make clear the situation when he replies this afternoon and not to miss this opportunity to do so.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Walters: I shall not detain the House for very long and, if the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) will forgive me, I shall not take up his many points, not even the one in which he gave for him surprising praise to Le Figaro. I am more a supporter of Le Monde.
Instead, I want to return to the speech of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who made a number of points with considerable persuasiveness, one of which I wish to develop. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the unique character of the decision to enter the European Economic Community. I would suggest that it is very difficult ever to decide what is unique and what is not. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance of the decision which has to be taken, and I agree that it is very important. He went on to refer to the decision about capital punishment and how in that instance some hon. Members did not have the full support of their constituents. It so happens that I voted as the right hon. Gentleman did. He went on to say the electorate had an opportunity to take another decision later on that issue if they so wished.
This is an interesting parallel, but it is one on a quite different level. On the

other hand, the situation which arose with the declaration of war in 1939 is closer in importance. It was a decision which led not only to victory in 1945 but to the situation that we faced in May, 1940. It was a decision which might have had disastrous consequences for the country.
Then there was the decision taken by a previous Labour Government to give independence to India. Certainly that was a decision of historic consequence. It brought about the end of the British Empire, and affected the subsequent development of this country and of the Commonwealth.
Those surely were fundamental historic decisions. However, no referendum was held before they were taken.
I do not question that the decision to enter Europe is one of major significance. It is right that there should be consultation and extensive debate. Those of us on this side of the House who support the Government's negotiations, who believe that they are proceeding well, and who hope that it will be possible for the Government to produce terms which we shall support with enthusiasm, are fully aware that we must discuss the matter with our constituents and consult them extensively. That means that a period of time is necessary for discussion, for consultation and for the passing of information; to do all of this is our responsibility. At the end of that period, it will be for us to make up our minds and to vole accordingly.
I believe the Government fully accept this and I see no reason whatsoever to suggest that there will be an attempt to "bounce" the House and the country into joining Europe. We have heard a great deal about the need for reasonable time for discussion and consultation, and I support this. However, the suspicion must arise that many of those who are arguing so forcibly about time for consultation really want to prevent the decision going in favour of entry and are using this argument as another means of trying to delay entry.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman thinks that, the longer that the debate goes on in the country, the less likelihood there is that the people will look favourably upon the terms that emerge?

Mr. Walters: I do not think that at all. I believe that, when the British people are informed and as they see the terms and realise that it is open to Britain to join Europe, there will be growing suport for British entry. On the other hand, I do not believe that it is necessary for an issue which has been debated and which will be fully debated again should continue to be debated ad infinitum. A decision should be reached within a reasonable time.
For those reasons, I support what I understand is the Government's attitude. I believe that when they are satisfied with the terms, they intend to give a reasonable period of time for consultation and then to move forward with determination and vigour.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The Leader of the House will be delighted to learn that I do not intend to talk about the Common Market. It would have been simpler if the right hon. Gentleman had set aside a day or two for a discussion on the Common Market before we rose for the Whitsun Recess.
My reason for intervening in the debate is to draw attention to the case of the daughter of one of my constituents, a school girl who was aged 15 last April and who is now in Holloway Gaol.
As long ago as 23rd January, she and a girl friend who is just over 16 appeared in court having been charged with various offences. Since then, there have been numerous remands on bail. Finally, on 20th May, four months after the original charges were made, a special juvenile court at Camberwell found the two girls guilty of the offences with which they had been charged.
This is neither the time nor the place to express my views on the conduct of the justices of the Camberwell Juvenile Court. I have had opportunities on previous occasions to deal with magistrates courts who have not carried out their duties satisfactorily. In this case, at the final hearing, the court referred to the Inner London Sessions the responsibility of deciding the sentences to be imposed.
We all know about the serious congestion in the various Metropolitan courts. No one knows how long it will be before

the Inner London Sessions decides the penalties to impose on these two girls. In the meantime, they are in Holloway, and I consider it monstrous that the only place to which they can be sent in these circumstances is Holloway Gaol. I suggest that the girls should have been sent to a remand home or Borstal institution. They should have been sent anywhere but Holloway.
When I got in touch with Home Office officials yesterday, they confessed to being helpless in the matter. But I still think that the Home Secretary should exert himself a little more and provide some alternative place for these girls to be kept pending a decision about the penalties that should be imposed on them. I urge the Leader of the House to bring the case to the notice of the Home Secretary so that, without interfering with or impeding the course of justice, some other arrangements can be made for the detention of these two young girls.
When I got in touch with the authorities in Holloway Gaol, I was told that the girls were in the prison hospital and to that extent were separated from the general run of prisoners. However, anyone who has seen what it is like in the hospital at Holloway Gaol will realise that it is just as unsuitable for young school girls as any other part of the prison. It is no consolation to pretend that incarceration in the prison hospital is better than incarceration in the prison itself.
I ask the Leader of the House to bring this case to the notice of the Home Secretary so that other arrangements can be made for the detention of these girls. I am not asking for them to be released. I am not querying the decision taken by the court. I am objecting most strenuously—it will come as a surprise to most people in this year of grace 1971—that it should still be possible for a London juvenile court to send a schoolgirl to Holloway Prison in the circumstances I have mentioned. I therefore ask the Leader of the House to bring this case urgently to the attention of the Home Secretary so that, if possible, tonight or tomorrow morning, these girls can be transferred to another place of detention while the Inner London Sessions—goodness knows when—makes up its mind on the sentence to be imposed.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I oppose the terms of the Whitsun Recess Motion for a variety of reasons.
The first reason is geophysical. I think that we should stay here and debate next week a Motion—an appropriate right hon. or hon. Member could be found to move it—on the shape of the earth.
I read in the Press this morning, for instance, that those who oppose the Common Market are called "flat earthers" by no less a person than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This may have been said in a facetious manner; it may have been said with tongue in cheek. However, as I read it—that is all I could judge from—it was said very seriously, and I rather resent it. As a Member of Parliament I am entitled to exercise my judgment and not to be held in contempt for it.
I know, because I taught children for many years, that the earth is not flat. I am not exactly ignorant about that. I used to describe the shape of the earth to children as being that of an oblate spheroid. I am glad that one hon. Member opposite agrees with me. We must have been educated in the same atmosphere.
The assumption that someone who does not believe as either the Establishment or pro-marketeers believe is ignorant is very wrong. We should be given the benefit of sound judgment. I am as sincere in my belief that we should not enter the Common Market as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are that we should. But to be designated as an ignorant "flat earther", as one whose thoughts are antediluvian, whose politics come out of the Ark, and whose knowledge of modern constitutions is almost barren, is to relegate me, and others who think like me. in a completely contemptuous fashion.
If we had such a debate next week—in discussing such a debate next week I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am in order—I could prove, at length, that it is a mistake to dismiss with contempt people who believe as I believe. It is a big mistake for any part of the Establishment of this House, whether on this side or opposite, to under-estimate what they think are minorities. I have learned that almost all revolutions spring

from minorities. If it is assumed that there is a minority of Members of this House against going into the Community, it is also a dangerous assumption to believe that they will not be affected and to dismiss them with arrogance, contempt and almost impertinence. That is the way I regard this matter.
I believe that opposition to going into the Common Market should be dealt with in a much wider way in our debates than hitherto. I am told that it is not the price of butter which counts, but something far wider and deeper. I shall not go into those issues now, but I believe that the wider and deeper issues have not been adequately touched upon in this House. I refer particularly to the constitutional issue.
Next week I should like a series of debates not only on the oblate spheroid, but on the constitutional implications of going into the E.E.C. In passing, I should say that "flat earthers", if such we are, are the only people with any physical chance of having both feet soundly on the ground, because if one is on a curvature one cannot stand properly. Therefore, we must carry this flat earth assumption to its logical conclusion.
I want to get back to the constitutional debate. I confidently believe that the cost impact over the next three years will be quite drastic and will militate against the success of my party at the next election. I am a fundamental Tory. I believe implicitly in Tory principles and have fought for them over many years. I believe that, before making a decision, we must examine the constitutional implications of going into the Community. Therefore, I urge that we should stay here next week and discuss not only the shape of the earth and all its consequences, but the constitutional issues involved in going into the Community.
I should like to take part in such a debate and ask my right hon. Friends and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—for instance, the Leader of the Opposition who tried to take us in at one time—what sort of Europe they want us to go into. Is it a federal Europe, a confederal Europe, a loose association, or what? We have not had from any prominent pro-marketeer in this House a deliberate statement on what will be


the future of this country in Europe in 30, 40 or 50 years.
I am not too worried about the price of butter—it will worry me, because it will be symptomatic of the rise in prices—but I am deeply worried about the future of my grandchildren. In 20, 30 or 40 years, in what kind of country will they be living, constitutionally and politically? That is what matters and that is what I want to debate next week.
Some people have said that we should go back to our constituencies and consult our constituents. I do that every week. I live in my constituency. Everybody knows me. I talk to people in the pubs, the clubs, the marts, everywhere. Furthermore, I fought the last two elections on a distinctly anti-Common Market ticket. Therefore, my constituents know where I stand and I know where they stand, because I won Burton in 1966 against the whole trend of the country. It was one of the best Tory results in the 1966 election, and on an anti-Common Market ticket. Therefore, I have no need to spend next week going into the mart at Uttoxeter or into the market place at Burton to find out what my electors think. They have told me by their votes.
There is another reason why the House should sit next week. It is in Committee work at full stretch. Hon. Members need only look at the board to see the number of Standing Committees which are sitting, not only in the mornings but in the afternoons, the late afternoons, the evenings and in one case all night and in another until 4.30 a.m. The House is at full stretch and is likely to be so for a considerable time. Next week, those hon. Members who did not want to take part in the debate on the oblate spheroid could sit on Standing Committees—I love that phrase—and get the work of the House cleared for when we get the terms of entry into the Common Market. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told me that I could not care less about the terms, and he told the truth. It does not matter what the terms are, I shall vote against the Common Market, and I have behind me the logic of the constitutional position, which has never been settled.
We should stay here next week and pile in on the Standing Committees. When we get the next two spasms of terms from my right hon. and learned Friend after his next two conferences in Europe, we should have the decks cleared of all our ordinary business, or as much of it as possible, so that we can devote all the ensuing days to discussing this epoch-making decision—a decision which will affect the future for ever. It will not be a part-time decision that we can revoke. It will be irrevocable. Let us come back next week and get the Standing Committees working night and day, day and night, to get the decks cleared. Then we can come to a decision perhaps before the Summer Recess, perhaps after it.
I have said that I do not like being treated with contempt. No minority in any organisation likes to be treated with contempt. I have referred to the "assumed minority". All the pundits have estimated the numbers on either side of the House, but they have underestimated the numbers of anti-Common Marketeers on this side of the House. Anyone who dismisses the minority of anti-Common Marketeers in this House is making a big mistake because all those parliamentarians who have been here for some time and know the manœuvrings and the tactics can reasonably weigh up the future form.
So far, I have been in order. Perhaps in what I am about to say I shall be getting out of order. It relates to beyond a week come Monday. If we have a debate on a Motion to "take note "—perhaps there could not be a vote on that—and then we have the crash decision to take two, three or four weeks after that, I can foresee the tendency of some people to use "bounce". But I remind them that if one bounces off flat earth one bounces up and down, whereas if one bounces in the surface of an oblate spheroid one bounces off at a tangent. If bounce is the tactics to be used for a decision in the last week of July or in the first week of August, the bounce may go off at a tangent and go wrong. One of the ways in which it could go wrong would be if some bright individual were to put down an Amendment to the effect that, "The Question be heard six months hence". That might really put the cat


among the pigeons as far as taking a decision was concerned. For these cogent and potent reasons, I do not want to go home tomorrow.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I hesitate to trouble the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) with a further intervention at this hour. Both of them know that I shall not unduly delay the outcome of the debate. Before the House rises for the Whitsun Recess it is, however, essential to have an assurance from the Government on the timing of any decision about entering the Common Market. It is the merest commonplace to say that the Government have no mandate from the British people to do more than negotiate. The Prime Minister was beside himself during the election campaign to emphasise that he was seeking authority to negotiate, no more and no less. Thus it would be an outrage against our democratic institutions and deeply degrading for this House if there were to be any attempt to rush a decision, over the heads of the electorate, on a matter of this importance.
There is great concern in the country that we are failing to take proper note of the anxieties of the British people and of their friends throughout the Commonwealth as to their future. Indeed, there are those here and in many parts of the Commonwealth who feel that Mme de Pompadour received less from her suitor than M. Pompidou did from his in Paris last week.
There is a feeling in the country and in Commonwealth countries generally that far too much has been given away already in the discussions in Paris, Brussels and elsewhere. I believe that the great majority of the British people are eminently right to have rejected the terms now proposed for British entry. Few, if any, of the vital safeguards promised have been secured. The Government have already accepted the entire Rome Treaty, the laws made under it, the Common Market's dear food policy and a Budget payment falling heavily and unfairly on Britain. No firm and lasting safeguards have been obtained for Commonwealth countries, rich or poor.
Many of us on this side of the House are escepially concerned about the Commonwealth poor. We are very troubled by the so-called agreement that has been reached on Commonwealth sugar. Commonwealth producers were told that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would seek bankable assurances to protect their interests. This pledge has not been honoured. These Commonwealth countries desperately need quantified access to Britain for their sugar.
It is wrong also that Australia's interests have been brushed aside. There are those who give the impression that Australia's connection with this country is no longer of importance, but that is not the view of the majority of the British people. Neither happily is it the view of the great majority of the people of Australia.
Consider what it will mean to Queensland if its sugar is excluded. It has been suggested that Australia will be phased out of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement if we adhere to the Treaty of Rome. That could have disastrous consequences for the farmers of Queensland, on whom the effect could in fact be worse than on New Zealand if we fail to secure adequate safeguards for that country. If Australian sugar is excluded from our market and from Western Europe, the International Sugar Agreement will be destroyed. Australian sugar will be forced on to the world market and the effects of that will damage the economies of 40 of the poorest countries.
There are people in Britain who feel that we should be talking here next week about the need for continuing trade relations with countries like Australia. The Leader of the House knows that many of us feel deeply on this issue. One might say that there are indeed those of us who have given tangible proof of our sincerity.
For my part, I have never felt that internationalism resides within tariff walls of the kind one sees in the E.E.C. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that a statement will be made, at the latest on the first day of our return, about the timing of any attempted decision about our entry into the Community. If we are not prepared to show anxiety on this matter, we merely prove our unrepresentativeness in the House.
The fact that so many contributions to this debate have been about the negotiations to enter the E.E.C. will, I am sure, not have come as a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman. This is the great issue now facing this House and the nation. I believe that the British people will take the first opportunity to reject those in this House who do not prove that they are prepared to act representatively on this issue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respond favourably to the points that have been made—made with, I believe, great conviction by hon. Members on both sides on this deeply crucial issue affecting the future of the nation.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: The Leader of the House may not consider it surprising that I wish to advance some reasons why the Whitsun Recess should be shorter. I will adduce five reasons why the House should be recalled next Thursday, 3rd June, and, again perhaps not surprisingly, they are all connected with the state of the Common Market negotiations.
My first reason is concerned with sugar. Next Wednesday, 2nd June, a conference will be held in London at which the sugar producing countries of the Commonwealth and the Government will be represented. We cannot know the outcome of that meeting, but one is entitled to speculate that it will not necessarily be a happy one for the Government. This morning's Guardian states:
None of the 14 countries which sell sugar on the British market under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement have expressed satisfaction at the Brussels pledge. All are critical and apprehensive. Mr. Rippon next week will have the task of hearing their detailed objections and trying to reassure them. They, for their part, apparently intend to press him as strongly as they can to return to Brussels in the next round of talks on June 2 with a request to reopen the subject.
In view of that, and the probable unsatisfactory outcome of next week's conference, it is imperative that the House should meet next Thursday to receive a statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the outcome of those consultations and about what he intends to do at the next ministerial negotiating session in Brussels on 7th June. If the statement is unsatisfactory, the House should have an opportunity of

expressing to him its deep concern and dissatisfaction with the state of consultation.
My second reason is also connected with the ministerial meeting on 7th June. It concerns a subject which is bound to come up at that session, as the meeting is the penultimate one, according to the Government's timetable, in the current negotiations with the Common Market countries. At this meeting the question of the financial contribution will undoubtedly be raised.
The present state of play is that the Government have made an offer of 3 per cent. as Britain's initial contribution to the Community budget. The Chancellor of the Duchy has on several occasions described this offer as being, in his opinion, reasonable and equitable. However, we are told by the newspapers, with what authority I do not know, that at the next ministerial negotiating meeting the Chancellor of the Duchy will tell the Common Market countries, following the summit meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of France in Paris recently, that Britain will be prepared to increase that initial offer—not to 4 per cent., which might be a reasonable negotiating tactic, but to more than double it, to between 7 per cent. and 9 per cent.
If the Chancellor of the Duchy can describe an offer of 3 per cent. as "reasonable and equitable", I wonder what words he will use to describe an offer of that magnitude. The English language is marvellous, but does it have the resources to cover that sort of reversal of negotiating position?
Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes to that meeting on 7th June the House should have a chance to debate the amount of our revised financial contribution. Perhaps 3 per cent. was marginally too low. Certainly anything of the order of 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. would be completely intolerable, inequitable and unreasonable. It would involve this country in a tremendous balance of payments burden, and this would ultimately lead to the very deflationary policies which have kept our growth at a much lower level than our competitors since the war, and not just since the Brussels Treaty was signed in 1958.
We should also have an opportunity to debate whether it is worth our while increasing our offer simply to subsidise


the costly, inefficient and protectionist common agricultural policy of the E.E.C., which has been universally condemned by every economist who has written on the subject. Yet on 7th June we shall possibly send a Minister to more than double our initial contribution to that costly policy. The House should meet next week, on Thursday, 3rd June, to tell the Minister that he cannot go to Brussels and increase that offer more than perhaps, marginally, by 1 per cent.
My third reason for wanting the House to be recalled on Thursday, 3rd June, is to deal with the subject of fisheries. Nothing has been said in the House recently, in Ministerial statements, about the current state of the negotiations regarding fisheries. Before the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster goes to Brussels on 7th June, we want to know whether he intends to clear up the position of the common fisheries policy in respect of our fisheries. The House will want to know soon—next week if possible—whether the fisheries issue will be settled before the House is called upon to take a vote.
If the Government consider that they can present a White Paper to the House in June or July which does not cover the fisheries issue—indeed it could not cover it unless it is mentioned at either the meeting on 7th June or the meeting on 21st-22nd June—they will be in for a great surprise. Many hon. Members who are basically pro Common Market—I do not include myself among them—may well feel that, since this issue has been fudged and left until the autumn, they could not possibly support a final decision on the matter until it is settled.
My fourth reason for wanting the House to be recalled next Thursday is to take account of the results of today's by-elections. With due modesty, we on this side of the House feel that those results will show a massive swing against the Government. One of the reasons for this is the very issue of rising prices which, in the public mind, is linked with the Government's attempt to get us into the Common Market. Some people consider that prices are deliberately being allowed to rise so that, when the crunch comes, there will not be so much extra to add on to prices. The House ought to have an opportunity of meeting before the next ministerial negotiating

session in Brussels on 7th June, so that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can be told in no uncertain terms of the verdict of the British people on the current state of the negotiations and the line that he ought to take in Brussels on 7th June—a line of negotiation for protection of the British people's interests and the interests of the Commonwealth; not a line of capitulation.
My final reason for wanting the House recalled next Thursday is connected with the forthcoming Government propaganda campaign in favour of entry. Before the Government embark on such a campaign, the House should have an opportunity of debating the form, style and content of that propaganda. I say that advisedly, because the existing Common Market propaganda coming from an organisation called the European Movement, subsidised by the Government with taxpayers' money is downright misleading, if not lying. I give an example.
In the propaganda of the European Movement it is plain that Britain has a certain number of holidays but that the Common Market countries have far more than we do. The clear implication, which must be obvious even to an infant of seven or eight, is that if Britain enters the Common Market, we shall all have longer holidays. There was a question to a Minister some months ago on this matter. The Government reply was that if Britain enters the Common Market this would not mean longer holidays. Why should it? Why should it mean, necessarily, that we should all suddenly find ourselves £5 a week better off? Of course we shall not. It is because of the misleading nature of the propaganda, subsidised by the Government, that the House should have an opportunity to debate the content of the Government's campaign before they embark on something that will lead them into a great deal of trouble with the Members of the House.
For these reasons, I earnestly ask the Leader of the House to recall the House next Thursday.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I shall not detain the House for very long. We ought to come back next week and


we ought to have a full-scale debate on the Common Market.
There have been gross exaggerations on the question on both sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) gave an example of a gross exaggeration by those in favour of entering the Common Market almost at any price. There have been exaggerations on the other side, too. For example, some of the arguments that Britain, almost overnight, would lose its sovereignty and be merged into a kind of new, total, overall political system, in which the House of Commons would be relegated to something like a parish council, have also been exaggerated. Hon. Members will know that in the past I was one of the foremost advocates of entry to the E.E.C. and that I once referred to some hon. Members as "ancient Britons". One hon. Member objected to being called a "flat earther" by one of his hon. Friends; possibly he was one of those I had in mind. It seemed that they were of a breed which, in all circumstances, wanted to oppose our entry into the Common Market.
In the past I have made my position clear. I have fought hard within my party and in the House for the idea of entry into the E.E.C., because I believed in the grand design of an overall European unity, which would involve all sections of Europe, so that we could stand up, as it were, against both America and Russia. But it is no use having a wonderful theory, a grand design, if it does not work out in practice. Either one has to say that there is something wrong with one's theory and one adapts one's theory to the reality in practice, or one continues in blind obeisance to a theory which leads into a blind alley.
Some politicians in the past have tried to put into effect the grand design in other ways, with disastrous consequences for Europe. If one wants to continue in that sort of way one ought not to allow this to happen without the whole subject being properly discussed and every angle examined in the greatest detail. We ought to have a debate next week on the Common Market because there are far too many issues which the House and the country have not considered in any depth.
The common agricultural policy has been mentioned. When I was advocating

passionately Britain's entry into the E.E.C. there was still a hope, despite the stupidity of the workings of the common agricultural policy then, that we, by being a member, could have changed the fundamental way in which the policy would have worked. But about a year ago that hope disappeared.
The final, irrevocable decision has been made. It is all very well for hon. Members to say, "In 10 years' time there will be a modern agricultural system in Europe, and all the problems that you are worried about will have disappeared, all the workers will have left the land, the peasant system will have been abolished, and you will have the kind of capitalist agricultural system that we have here". The difficulty is to accept something that it is said will happen in 10 years' time, while in the meantime one has to pay a heavy price, and I regard the common agriculture policy as utter folly.
It represents one of the most ridiculous systems in the world, and for that reason alone, apart from any other, I could not accept entry into the Common Market without this fundamental issue being open for negotiation. But we know that it is not. We know that it has been settled, just as many other things have been settled by means of orders and regulations, particularly during the last 18 months.
The great dream that I had of joining a Europe moving in the direction in which I wanted it to go has disappeared. I therefore have to bring myself into line with reality or continue on a path which leads nowhere. I hope that I am an honest politician. I try to be an honest person. I know that it is very difficult for politicians to say, "I advocated that last year, but I have changed my mind this year". Perhaps I should say that it is not difficult for some politicians to do that. Some politicians can change their minds overnight, and say "That is what I said yesterday, but I have changed my mind today". I hope that I am not in that category. I am trying to be utterly honest about this whole issue.
About a year or 18 months ago, in an article in the New Statesman, I said that I had had second thoughts on the matter, and that I could not go along in the way that I had in the past. The doubts


and hesitations that I had then have increased as time has gone on, and I think that we need a full-dress debate next week so that we can consider all these issues at considerable length and ensure that those who are not totally committed on one side or the other have the opportunity to examine in great detail some of the important problems with which we are faced. We must, for example, consider the rôle of a European Parliament, the future political set-up of the organisation. This issue has not been properly debated. It has not been examined at any length, and many other issues remain to be considered in full.
I ask the House to consider the question of the sugar agreement. Hon. Members have quite rightly referred to the effect that joining the Common Market will have on the sugar producing countries. I remind the House that not only will it affect the sugar producing countries, but it will have a serious effect on the workers in the sugar refining industry here. When Tate & Lyle workers at Liverpool write to me and say that unless there is something better than a statement saying that the Government are taking all the considerations to heart they must be worried about their future, I take note of that. "Taking to heart" does not mean quite what the right hon. Gentleman tried to make out that it meant. My wife is a member of the Institute of Linguists, and according to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) she understands French perfectly. According to her, that expression does not mean quite what the right hon. Gentleman said it did. It does not mean what the right hon. Gentleman tried to kid us it meant.
When workers in Liverpool, an area with a high rate of unemployment, write to me, through their shop stewards' committee, saying that they are concerned about the future of their employment, and want to know where they stand, I take serious note of their position. Hon. Members should bear in mind that aspect of the problem.
I think that all these matters ought to be debated at great length. Merely having reports and short statements, followed by hon. Members trying to frame questions so that they do not take up too much time, and are able to get their points over quickly, is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the fundamental and

momentous decision which this country has to take. That is not the right way to deal with this great issue. At every stage of the negotiations there ought to be a short debate on the issues involved so that the ramifications of each stage of the process are understood, both in this House, and by people outside.
We are not getting that, and therefore I hope that we shall not all rush off to have a weekend away from the House, much as I should like that in one sense. I hope that next week we shall have a serious debate on the present stage of the negotiations, and what the future holds for Britain and the British people. In my view the British people are not being properly consulted. Their views are not being properly heard. It is time that they were, and it seems to me that the Government and the Opposition must give the maximum amount of time for a debate to enable the proper decision to be made.

Mr. John Tilney: Would the hon. Gentleman care to cast his mind back to the thirties? The hon. Gentleman spoke about the people of this country being consulted. Some of us are old enough to remember the League of Nations' vote on rearmament. I suspect that if we had discussed with the people of this country whether they wanted us to rearm, many of us would be flat in the earth.

Mr. Heffer: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into that realm. I have made my position clear. We are being asked to decide the momentous and fundamental question whether we should become part of the European Economic Community. Ballots on the League of Nations, the peace ballot, and so on, are different matters. The British people must be consulted in full before a decision is made whether to enter the Common Market.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Fred Peart: This is a traditional debate on the Adjournment of the House. Quite properly, hon. Members raised matters which they feel should be clarified by further Government statements, either by the Leader of House this evening, or, if he cannot now deal with the issues raised, by conveying our views to the Ministers concerned so


that they can deal with them in due course.
This has been an interesting afternoon, and many topics have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the question of unemployment in Scotland, an issue on which he was strongly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell). My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian was also worried about investment in multi-national companies, and he asked for a serious study of the whole matter. He asked, too, what the Government's investment plans were, and how the tax changes would affect the investment plans of those companies which provide employment for many of our people in Scotland.
Unemployment is not a matter which affects only Scotland. It is causing concern in many of the regions. There has been a considerable rise in the unemployment figures, and these are now a major talking point in current by-elections. I noted what my hon. Friends said about unemployment in Scotland, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will urgently convey their views to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), who always assiduously defends his constituents, raised a matter affecting the Home Office. The Lord President will have taken note of what was said, and I am sure he will make the necessary representations.
Throughout the speeches of other hon. and right hon. Members there has been an uneasy feeling about the discussions and the form of debate which should take place on the Common Market. A former Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) talked in detail about the timetable of the negotiations. He was interrupted by his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). I would support the right hon. and learned Gentleman because I believe that he is basically right on this issue.
Many hon. Members, whatever their views about the Market, believe that there should be adequate consultation. I feel that to be extremely important. After

all, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who is the principal spokesman on foreign affairs for my party, has a distinctive point of view which he explained to readers of the Daily Mirror the other day. There are various opinions on both sides of the House. But I am sure that all hon. Members, whatever positions they take and whatever attitudes they have on the Common Market, would agree that there must be adequate discussion and consultation. This was clear in most of the speeches.
We must not have a vote too soon. I believe that that would be an abuse of our procedures. Nor must there be any attempt to manoeuvre decisions. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted an article in The Times arguing that we must give public opinion an opportunity to manifest itself, and that spokesmen and politicians should explain their attitudes. Many hon. Members have already made up their minds. No one denies that. But many have not. There is still a need for information and, as I tried to show in an intervention, the Government are embarking on a campaign of providing factual information for the British public. I do not accept the view of the hon. Member for Rush-cliffe (Mr. Clark) that this issue is stale. I was at Bromsgrove last night on the eve of the by-election poll, and practically all the questions raised at my meetings were on the Common Market issue. The British people are interested in this subject. They are anxious to know where people stand. It is the main talking point; so it cannot be stale. We must have adequate debate in this House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) made a plea for this. He said that opinion was deeply disturbed—and I believe that he is right. Many people are angry about the rush in the negotiations, although I know that some take a different view. This point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West and many others. My hon. Friend made a vigorous speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer); and other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), argued that we must have adequate discussion and pointed to the dangers if we do not.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House how long he thinks there should be, instead of sitting on the fence on this issue?

Mr. Peart: I would not say that I have sat on the fence on this issue. Perhaps I may quote what the Leader of the Opposition said on 24th May when he pleaded for a debate first, without decision, and later for the postponement of a major decision until after the autumn. I stand by that. In reply, the Prime Minister said that he was not prepared to give an undertaking at this stage. I must be fair to him: he said that he was prepared to talk in the usual way with the Leader of the Opposition on the best method of handling this and that, with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and indeed the Cabinet, he would take into account the different views in the House.
May I reinforce this strong opinion which flows from all sides of the House by using a phrase which some hon. Members thought rather harsh when it was used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and which I repeated from a seated position. The Prime Minister was rather sensitive about it. I would say that we do not want to be "bounced". I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the House will confirm that there will be adequate discussion and also that there will not be a decision before we rise for the Summer Recess. I know that we must not argue about the next Session, but I am asking that the Leader of the House should take note of what has been said and convey it to the Prime Minister and his colleagues. When we return, we may then expect a major statement on this crucially important issue.
There is deep concern. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North went into great detail about the great problems that have arisen already. He was led to the conclusion that we must have a referendum. I am only suggesting to the Lord President, the spokesman for the Government today, that if there is any attempt to create frustration among back-bench Members of Parliament and a feeling in the country that political leaders are not carrying the people with them, inevitably there will be more and more demands for a referendum. [An

HON. MEMBER: "Or a General Election."] Or a General Election. But I am not yet convinced that a referendum is the answer. I believe that this issue should be settled with proper regard for hon. Members and for their constituents.
Of course, I should like an election on this. I share the view of the hon. Member for Burton on its importance. My constituents know my views, as do the Press who, over the years, have run a vicious and ugly campaign against some of us who were in the late Administration. The hon. Member for Burton spoke of the arrogance of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in calling some of his colleagues and others who take a different view from him "flat earthers". I agree with the hon. Member's judgment. It was arrogance of the worst kind, and others have been guilty of similar arrogance.
I hope that we can cease being arrogant with each other. There are distinctively important arguments on both sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton gave his own sincere view of the common agricultural policy. I understand it, and no one would accuse him of flying a kite just for expediency. He has deeply held views and is always forthright in putting them forward.
I hope that this debate will be conducted at a high level, and without personal rancour. I give an assurance that I will do all I can to ensure that this question which, after all, affects the constitution of our country and is one of the major decisions of our time, is not argued on a basis of personal abuse. People will argue strongly and vigorously—and that is right; but they must respect the sincerely held views of others. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Stepney and East Ham, North said, there are huge problems affecting a great many people outside the House.
The whole question of the sugar negotiations is an example. I am not going to follow the arguments that have been used by hon. Members, such as that put so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). But there are great problems which need further consultation. After all, the Chancellor of the Duchy is to have consultations next week with major spokesmen for the Commonwealth sugar producing countries. I had the pleasure not long ago


of visiting the West Indies and following in the footsteps of the Chancellor of the Duchy. He gave the impression to people in the West Indies that we could not possibly let down the sugar producers, that they must have bankable assurances, that they must have access to the market. But there has been a change.
These are matters we have to debate and to argue in this House. We have had some cross-examination at Question Time, but many hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Burton, my hon. Friend the Member for Walton and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone now want a debate next week. That is why they are seeking to delay the Adjournment. I understand their feelings and share their views. But it is not merely a question of the West Indies, Mauritius, Fiji or parts of India and Africa. There is also Queensland, which has been left out and sold down the river already, and where some of our friends have been considerably harmed and offended.
Then there are the negotiations over New Zealand. Again, we cannot go into detail, but I know of many hon. Members who are very worried about the progress of these negotiations. Whatever the arguments about entry, there is widespread concern. Many people are afraid that major decisions will be taken over their heads. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamslow, West said, there is also the argument about the financial contribution. The offer of 3 per cent. has been raised in order to support the costly common agricultural policy which has been condemned even in Europe. Even Mr. Mansholt has been sceptical about its effectiveness. He has suggested that one day the E.E.C. countries would have to move towards the British deficiency payment system, which is to be wiped out by the present Government.
Then there is the worry about the fisheries industry, which affects some of our Norwegian friends. If the policy is not altered, if we do not get anything out of the negotiations, it could mean disaster for our inshore fishing fleet as well as for our friends in Norway. These are all matters that are worrying people in the country. Therefore, I urge that

there must be adequate debate and consultation, whatever views we may have.
I shall be out of order if I pursued many of the main arguments that have been developed, which will, however, have to be further debated on the Floor of the House. They include major constitutional issues, the sovereignty of Parliament, and the final arrangements on agriculture. There are the questions of what is to emerge for New Zealand and on sugar. There are many other matters, including regional and monetary policies, real issues which affect the British people. They have a right to be taken into consultation. We must also provide them with adequate information. We must discuss every aspect of the question with them. There must be no arrogant attitude, such as I thought was reflected in the speech of one hon. Member, towards the men and women in our constituencies. The good basic British commonsense of our electorates may in the end play a decisive rôle in the argument about the Common Market. Let no one ignore it.
The Prime Minister said last year, on 5th May, 1970, before he became Prime Minister, that it would not be in the interests of the Community that its enlargement should take place except with the full-hearted consent of the Parliaments and peoples of the new member countries. How do he and the Leader of the House propose to judge what people think? How does the Leader of the House propose to conduct the debate in Parliament? Will he give a straight reply to my right hon. Friend who raised this matter? He said that there will be consultations, but will he see that there is adequate discussion and that no attempt is made to manoeuvre the decision through the House, but rather that we have in this great democratic assembly full argument and debate, in which all the major issues can be adequately discussed? Until that happens, there can be no decision. If the Government attempt to do otherwise, with indecent haste, they will unite even many of their supporters who favour entry in opposition to their headlong and indecent rush.

6.34 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) was right


in saying that a vast amount of the debate has been devoted to discussion about the Common Market. Some of the speeches concerned the merits of the case, and some the handling of the whole question in the House. This is only natural in the circumstances. I will take the most careful note of what has been said, both on the merits and on the issues of handling.
I regret that I must deny myself the great pleasure of arguing the merits. I sometimes feel that I would very much like to enter into the argument at this moment, but some of my Cabinet colleagues might think that it would have been better if I had not spoken at all, because I might not succeed in putting the case as well as many of them would. Therefore, I shall do much better to stay out of the argument altogether, except to say one thing: the right hon. Member for Workington said that his constituents have long known his views. My constituents have long known mine, which have remained the same throughout the time when my Government applied to join the E.E.C., when the right hon. Gentleman as a Cabinet Minister supported his Government's application, and again now. My constituents know very well that I am one of those who believe that joining the E.E.C. would be in the long-term interests of this country, and I hope that we shall succeed, in the negotiations, in obtaining the right terms.
On the question of handling the matter in the House, I can only repeat what I said in answer to Business Questions this afternoon, that at this stage it is impossible to forecast when the White Paper on the results of the negotiations can be published. No decision can be taken at this stage about the timing of debates. Therefore, any question of bouncing the House, or trying to manœuvre the decision through, is out of place. I can honestly say that no decision on the question of timing has been taken, and I have undertaken that before any decision is made there will continue to be the fullest consultation.
As no decision has been taken, I shall most carefully consider with my colleagues, the arguments that have been put forward, some in one direction, some in another. I assure the right hon. Member

for Workington, the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), and the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshtire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Mr. Jennings), Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis), Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) and Westbury (Mr. Walters), and the hon. Members for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that I wish to have the fullest possible consultation. I have had some part of that consultation—if that is the right word—in the views expressed this afternoon by all those right hon. and hon. Members. This is profitable in coming to a decision. I wish to confirm once again—and it is important that I should—that no decision of any kind has been taken, and, therefore, that all these points of view can and will be taken into account before any decision is made.
I turn to the other matters that have been raised. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), with his customary courtesy, informed me in advance of what he wished to say. I am most grateful 1o him. He raised first the question of the effect on multi-national companies of the Government's investment plans. The Government believe that our package of investment incentives will be as effective for multi-national companies as for British companies. I remind the hon. Gentleman that these include two cuts in corporation tax and substantial Local Employment Act assistance in the development areas, together with the new system of capital allowances. We believe that these will be attractive to both the multi-national and British companies.
The hon. Member next raised the question of a crisis in the electronics industry because of dumping by the United States and Japan. His remarks will be conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I have investigated this matter, and I find that it is true that large numbers of low-priced, standard circuits, have been imported into the United Kingdom from U.S. manufacturers. I am assured that prices of these types of circuits have fallen sharply in other parts of the world,


and evidence of dumping has not been submitted to the Government. If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is evidence, I hope that he will contact my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for West Lothian and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell) raised the question of the closure of the Plessey machine tool section at Alexandria, which is of considerable importance to Alexandria and to a county of which I have considerable knowledge. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West asked about the position of any new equipment on which grant may have been paid by the Government. I am informed by the Department of Trade and Industry that no investment grant has been paid on any new plant in Alexandria. If any of the plant at Alexandria which has been brought there from other factories—for example, at Dalkeith or at Bathgate—has received investment grant, the grant will be repayable if it is moved from Alexandria to outside a development area. I also undertake to ensure that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—the Under-Secretary for Scotland is with me now—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment look carefully into all these problems caused by what is obviously an extremely unfortunate closure. I undertake that the Government will do the best they can.

Mr. Dalyell: Thank you.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) raised the case of the girls from his constituency who have been sent to Holloway Prison. I will represent these matters to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but it will help in the investigations if the hon. Gentleman will give details of the persons concerned. The information will be passed to my right hon. Friend and then inquiries will be made into all the circumstances

and why the case has been handled as it has. I understand why the hon. Gentleman did not give the details in the House.

Mr. Lipton: The Home Office has all the details required to enable the Home Secretary to pursue the matter.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know that my right hon. Friend will consider the case on that basis.
The right hon. Member for Stepney raised the important matter, which has worried many people both inside and outside the House, of the situation in East Bengal. He asked whether my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary could make a statement before the House rises for the recess. I know that my right hon. Friend is most anxious to keep the House fully informed of any developments there. We immediately responded to the situation by our contribution to the Secretary-General's appeal for the refugees. The reports of clashes between India and East Bengal are serious matters. My right hon. Friend is keeping in close touch with those concerned. It is also true that Mrs. Gandhi and President Yahya Khan are only too well aware of the dangers of these clashes and will do all they can to prevent them. The British Government will do all we can to help with communications and on the whole question of the refugees.
I think that I have referred to most of the matters raised in the debate. I take neither comfort nor pleasure in the fact that I am once again proposing a shorter than usual Whitsun Recess. It is a somewhat short one, but in the circumstances reasonable and right. I therefore ask the House to support the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising Tomorrow do adjourn till Tuesday, 8th June.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE PROCUREMENT AND RESEARCH

6.45 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, Sesion 1968–69, on Defence Research (House of Commons Paper No. 213), and of the White Paper, Government organisation for Defence Procurement and Civil Aerospace (Command Paper No. 4641).
The Report of the Select Committee is, of course, much the senior of the two documents. It was published more than two years ago, but although the previous Government published a White Paper replying to the Report, the Report was never debated in this House. The House will welcome the fact that it is at last being debated today.
The Report, as everybody who has read it will agree, was a very painstaking and valuable contribution to the study of an immensely complex subject. I have no doubt that it received the most careful consideration by the previous Administration, as it did by this one. Since the Report was published, much has happened, including in particular the publication of the Rayner Report and the decisions that the Government have taken on it. As the House will be aware, Mr. Rayner has acknowledged the help he received from the Select Committee's Report.
I do not propose to rehearse in detail the contents of the Rayner Report, but I hope it will be in accordance with the wishes of the House if I draw attention to some of the main features of the Rayner proposals, at the same time commenting on the relationship between these and the recommendations of the Select Committee, a relationship which, as the members of the Select Committee will know, is often very close. Then, at the end of the debate, if I have the leave of the House and am successful in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, I would hope to comment as best I can on some of the points raised by hon. Members.
Before I embark on this task, however, I am sure the House would wish me

to congratulate Mr. Rayner and his team on the production of such a lucid and thorough analysis of the problems of defence procurement. The Government have been happy to accept the recommendations of the Report and are extremely pleased that Mr. Rayner has agreed to serve as the chief executive in the organisation which will be set up as a consequence of his Report.
The main problem which successive Governments have had to face in procurement has been, as the Rayner Report puts it, the mismatch between Service requirements and the resources available to meet them—in other words, how to achieve the optimum allocation of resources to defence procurement. This is a problem which involves both the formulation of equipment policy and its execution. The Rayner Report is more concerned with the latter. It will still be for the policy staffs in the Ministry of Defence to lay down the qualitative and quantitative requirements for defence equipment; it will be for the Procurement Executive to carry them out. What the Rayner Report proposes is an organisation to bring the problems of procurement more into focus by drawing a sharper distinction between the formulation of policy and the management of programmes, and by introducing a more efficient management structure.
I shall have something to say later about the relationship of the Procurement Executive with the rest of the Ministry of Defence and about the Select Committee's observations on the formulation of research and development policy. For the moment, I want to concentrate on the organisational aspects of the Procurement Executive.
Since the end of the war, there have been a number of attempts to reconcile the Services' wish to handle their own procurement and the advantages of concentrating procurement activity. With the Ministry of Supply, the balance lay towards concentration in a separate organisation. More recently, the balance has shifted towards the Army, as well as the Navy, assuming responsibility for at least part of their procurement. But aircraft, guided weapons and most electronics have remained with a separate department and the Air Force has continued to obtain its equipment from such


a source. This separation between user and procurement authority has inevitably led to some loss of contact between the two.
For this reason, and also because the defence equipment area is very sensitive to political considerations, the Rayner Report comes down firmly against the idea of setting up a special agency. It has been decided therefore to place the staff concerned within the Ministry of Defence. Within that Department the choice lies between splitting them between the Service Departments and concentrating them in one organisation. Because of the specialist nature of procurement—and the Rayner Report brings this out very clearly—we have chosen the latter course and we intend to create within the Ministry, and as an integral part of the Ministry, a Procurement Executive.
We shall be at pains to ensure that the closest links will be established between the Executive and the Armed Services as users. The exact form of relationship between them is still under consideration. There may have to be some changes in the machinery for coordination but we expect no difficulty in ensuring that the Executive's activities remain consistent with the overall policy of the Ministry. Two examples will be enough to show the sort of measure we have in mind. As Minister of State for Defence Procurement I shall, under the Secretary of State, be responsible for overseeing not only the staffs in the procurement area but the staffs responsible within the Ministry of Defence for the fomulation of operational requirements.
Secondly, the main systems controllers responsible for naval land and air weapons will have very close links with the Service Departments through being members of the appropriate Service Boards and the Controller of Guided Weapons and Electronics will be available also to attend Service Boards as necessary.
The Select Committee naturally devoted a considerable section of its Report to the fundamental importance of getting right long-term defence and R. and D. policy. There can be no quarrel with the objective, but its achievement is one that has always been most difficult to attain: much time and effort have been expended on trying to improve the Government's

methods of tackling this issue. The Select Committee, recognising the difficulties, recommended the concept of an open and conscious process of R. and D. policy formation in which the various constraints would be set against alternative forms of weapons systems, force structures and strategy, and against alternative defence and foreign policy objectives. This postulated the formulation of a long-term defence model, the operation of which would enable comparison between the various alternatives and a choice to be made of the ideal policy.
The Government entirely agree that the defence R. & D. programme can achieve optimum allocation of resources only if it is based on a clearly understood and well-defined defence policy. The purpose of defence planning is to decide what we are up against, what threats we are seeking to meet, to establish correct priorities and to make the best use of the available resources in the light of competing claims. But the operation of a defence model on the lines proposed would create formidable problems. Here I lean towards the view expressed by the former administration in their White Paper on the Select Committee's Report, when they said in paragraph 7:
Unfortunately the merits of such a project seem likely to be diminished by practical considerations. There is little prospect that the myriad possible options which would present themselves could be resolved within an acceptable period of time even if it were possible to recruit the additional staff which would be required to justify their cost.
I think that this is another occasion where we shall have to abandon the pursuit of the ideal and reconcile ourselves to the attainable. And this means that it is necessary to approach these questions in a rather less precise and formal way, while achieving, in our view, an equally effective solution.
Different levels of policy require their own procedures. At Ministerial level, adequate machinery exists for co-ordinating and presenting the views of Departments on issues which cross Departmental boundaries. In the defence area, there is, of course, the closest co-ordination with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Treasury. Within the Ministry of Defence the Secretary of State is


advised not only by the Chiefs of Staff on military matters, but by administrative, scientific and military staff dealing with politico-military operations, systems studies, programming and budget issues and manpower as well as with equipment procurement and logistics.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could the hon. Gentleman clarify this point? I understand that under the new procedure the Treasury will not be represented, as it was, at the initial stages. If I am not correct in this, can the hon. Gentleman put my doubts at rest, because it is obviously important in the area of weapons development that the Treasury should be brought in at the earliest stage?

Mr. Gilmour: As I hinted or suggested earlier, the exact machinery for co-ordination has not yet been fully worked out. What committee structure would be needed has not yet been finalised. We are aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman made and have it very much in mind. It is wrong to say that the Treasury will definitely not be there. The odds are that it will be in at the very early stage.
The object of this comprehensive advice is to set the policy framework within which particular activities, procurement among them, can be pursued. At each succeeding level as policy evolves, options can be identified, examined and narrowed down.
So far as defence equipment options are concerned, I have no doubt that the new Procurement Executive, with its highly-skilled expertise and specialised approach, will enable more realistic choices to be made. However, in any review of the purposes and procedures of defence procurement, one must, as I have said, encounter the problem of how best to match the need for new and advanced equipment with the resources available to us which, understandably, are never quite adequate for the purpose. The Select Committee devoted a considerable part of its report to this very problem, and to the ways in which improved decision-making could help to end the wasteful business involved in cancelling projects to meet relatively short-term financial pressures.
It suggested the increased use of operational analysis to select the optimum

deployment of research, development and production resources for the best equipment as well as for determining overall defence policies. The Government of the day, in their White Paper on the report, acknowledged the considerable importance of operational analysis in helping to solve these problems, but observed that it was a tool rather than an end in itself. That is a proposition which I entirely accept. We regard the contribution that operational analysis can make as extremely important. We are doing our best to strengthen the excellent team which has been assembled at the Operational Analysis Establishment at West Byfleet. I do not believe that we can make the operational analysis staff responsible for the ultimate decision-taking: they have their important rôle to play, but it is not plumb in the centre of the stage, to the virtual exclusion of all other actors in the play.
The Rayner team has pointed to a somewhat different method of keeping to a minimum the number of projects which are either still-born or cut off at an early age. It believes that there should be a much greater selectivity of objectives to make the most effective use of available resources, and that there should be a greater concentration of research effort and exploratory development. It recognises that costs cannot be forecast with reasonable accuracy until a relatively substantial part of the development has been undertaken, and therefore suggests that something of the order of 15 per cent. of forecast development expenditure on a particular project has to be spent before a confident decision can be taken to go to full development. It recommends that exceptions to this rule should be taken only "consciously and deliberately". I believe that on this subject the Rayner Report echoes the Select Committee's interest in and advocacy of the basic development of sub-systems and units for timely incorporation into major systems.
As the House knows, we are about to embark on a review of the organisation of the research and development establishments, and in the course of this review, we shall, of course, be taking fully into account the need to concentrate our research effort and exploratory development more selectively.
The Select Committee expressed considerable concern that collaboration with other countries in the development of a project had its disadvantages. It felt that it might lead to increased costs and certainly a release of national know-how and experience. The last Administration pointed out that with major projects the choice is not always just between collaboration and a single national project, but more often between collaboration and a number of competing projects, each sponsored by a different country. A joint project in the latter case is clearly more economical for all unless the extra costs of collaboration outweigh the benefits of sharing. The development of the Jaguar aircraft with the French may be quoted as an excellent example of economical cost-sharing. The M.R.C.A. offers equally favourable prospects.
The brutal fact is that the costs of developing advanced types of aircraft like these are now so heavy that we can rarely contemplate embarking on a development programme of our own. None the less, here again the Select Committee shares some common ground with the Rayner team. The latter has recognised that, for a variety of reasons, international collaborative projects can lead to long delays with resultant increases in costs, and with the loss overseas of industrial know-how to our ultimate disadvantage, particularly in export markets. We shall be more conscious than ever in considering collaborative projects in the future of the reservations shared by the Select Committee and the Rayner team.
Three years ago, when the Select Committee was collecting the evidence on which its report is based, the practice of appointing departmental project managers had only recently been adopted, and was already showing signs of success. The Committee commended it, but pointed to the necessity of giving one man the maximum permissible responsibility for each project even though this posed difficult problems of financial powers and relationships with the permanent hierarchy.
Mr. Rayner's team has accepted this view. The organisation of the Procurement Executive, with systems controllers responsible for their own Votes and thus autonomous in their particular procurement

areas, will be based on project-orientated groups which in turn spring from a series of projects each with its own manager. The project manager will dispose of his own specialists—for example, those concerned with contracts, finance, quality assurance and so on—and the project team will retain its responsibility throughout the entire life of a piece of equipment.

Mr. Dalyell: It has been put to me that there is a potentially difficult relationship between the finance assistant deputy secretary and his colleagues. It is a matter of consequence to people in industry to know precisely what is the relationship.

Mr. Gilmour: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty has been put to me by industry that they would like to be clear about the relationship between the finance secretary, who seems to be in a relatively junior post, and his colleagues. I am asking about the seniority of the financial control.

Mr. Gilmour: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The Permanent Secretary will be the accounting officer for the non-systems controllers and the Deputy Secretary will come under him. So the Deputy Secretary (Finance) is not on a level with the other systems controllers. Finance will be an important matter, but it will be based on project management rather than on lateral control. This conception of organisation is an important one as the hon. Gentleman who is a member of the Committee will know.
The principles on which the future organisation is to be founded are set out in paragraph 37 of the Government's White Paper, and I would expect them to command the support of the authors of the Select Committee report. The emphasis on line management, the simplification of procedures, the reduction of committee work, are all objectives which the Select Committee either explicitly or implicitly has blessed, and I hope that the creation of the Executive would be regarded as wholly consistent with the Select Committee's views.
I am sure that we are all grateful to Mr. Rayner and his team for the work that they did and to the members of the


Select Committee for the interesting and far-seeing report that they produced.

7.7 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: The Rayner Report contains a quotation which bears repetition. It comes from Petronius in the year A.D. 66:
… we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion. inefficiency and demoralisation.
These words have a moral for all of us. The one thing on which we are all agreed on both sides of the House is that defence procurement and defence research and development have been subjected in the last decade to intensive reorganisation, intensive change, and there is a wish to see from now on a period of stability.
In framing our attitude to the subject under discussion, and in particular to the Rayner Report, we cannot commit ourselves to any specific form of organisation which, when we return to government, we shall implement, but it would be our intention to work with this framework. If there had not been major deficiencies thrown up by the existing organisation, it would be our intention to work within it and to try to give the whole important area of Government research and development a period of organisational stability.
I will try to develop our general attitude to this subject. The House knows that the subject under discussion is of considerable importance, not just because of the decisions which have to be made and which have a crucial effect on the overall effectiveness of our fighting forces, but because it involves large sums of money. We are here discussing on defence R. and D. a budget of £264 million, which represents about one-tenth of the defence budget and over 25 per cent. of all the R. and D. undertaken in Britain at any one time. We are talking about 28,700 individuals who are employed in this organisation, 5,000 of whom are experimental and scientific officers. So this is an important section of the nation's scientific research effort. We are talking about 24 separate major establishments engaged on defence work, plus about four other establishments whose work is strongly allied to defence.
The Opposition in looking at these proposals welcome the fact that the

Rayner Report is an extremely lucid document. Everybody will join in welcoming the presentation of this complex problem. We have already said in this House on the Order and in another place that we have reservations, particularly in regard to the subordination of the civilian side of aerospace to the defence side. Everybody realises that there are difficult choices and demarcations to be made in this area. On the edges of demarcation there are bound to be difficulties in collaboration. However, I believe that on balance these proposals are right.
When we were in Government we were moving towards the belief that this was the sort of development that would happen. In evidence to the Headquarters Organisation Committee I myself as Minister, and some of my hon. Friends, felt that this was the sort of way we would have to go. However, we are aware of the danger that a Procurement Executive could be an insulator between military and civil research development. We are also well aware, as I am sure is the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, of the grave danger of secrecy being used as a blanket to stop vital research effort and its results being extended into civil industry. This is one of the real dangers of the Ministry of Defence taking over these departments. There must be in the Ministry of Defence a much more relaxed attitude to security, not in the sense of the top security since we all realise that this is a matter of major importance, but in the sense that classification can be its own worst enemy. This certainly has been the case in the past.
We feel that the Rayner Committee was right to reject the agency proposal. The idea was put to the Committee by the Government, so the Committee was rejecting the guidance set out in its terms of reference. I agree that there is a strong political element in this sphere and that there are dangers of separating the user from the procurer. We accept that procurement is a highly specialised function and needs a strong central unitary organisation for the management of projects, control of research and negotiation of contracts. The Procurement Executive is a way of undertaking this difficult problem, and I wish it well.
As for the position of the Minister of State for Procurement, this is a little strange coming from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who rather poured scorn on the position of Ministers of Equipment. I regard this as the right decision. I believe it is necessary to have someone of the standing of the Minister of State to look after procurement. It is too much of a burden for the Secretary of State to be involved in all the day-to-day decisions. The emphasis in the new situation is that the hon. Gentleman is also given a wider brief in looking after operational requirements, and this is a good thing. This was a possible weakness in the previous structure in regard to the Minister of Equipment who did not have quite such a large brief in looking at the operational requirements of the system. These matters are part and parcel of the system and I welcome the change. It is also some recognition of the importance attached by the Select Committee on Science and Technology to the work of the D.O.A.E. There has been the tendency to exaggerate the rôle which the D.O.A.E. can play in the formation of policy, but I am sure that it has an important rôle. The criticism to be made is that it has not so far been used enough. The Minister has a real opportunity to use this important research tool in developing a coherent strategy.
It is worth looking at some of the principles involved and the question of how we should look at the R. & D. establishments. Much has been said about the mechanism of shrinkage, but I wish to get away from this term. Shrinkage seems to imply an overall reduction and there are grave dangers in overall reductions. Such a process is necessary during a period of defence change as occurred during the last three or four years, under the Labour Government, and was the only way at that time to deal with the situation. We managed through putting in fixed manpower targets and insisting on the reduced budgets to reduce a good deal of the "fat" in the research establishments. But we should be under no illusions that this is no way of getting away from the basic problem of making choices. There are choices to be made in terms of amalgamation of existing establishments and closures in terms of choosing which are the important areas of concern. The danger of shrinkage

overalls that one has manpower ceilings and there is a tendency not to recruit. This tends to result in an ageing career structure and ageing staffing and there is also a morale problem. By reducing overall one does not give a stimulus to those areas of prime concern.
I hope we shall now choose areas of prime concern and give them the resources of backing and equipment and also the people they need. This will do a lot to offset any morale problems that may come in with amalgamation or other changes. We must also bear in mind that research in any area of government, that is to say research in its purest sense, cannot always be entirely motivated to the next piece of equipment one is to produce, or based on the most immediate problem one faces. There is a place in research to go out to the fringes of knowledge and to be able to pick up a piece of knowledge which is two leaps ahead of present-day thought.
One achieves that freedom if one is concentrating on areas of prime concern and is not stretching resources too thinly. The Rayner Report in paragraph 89 said:
… at present research effort is spread too thinly over a wider range of possible future requirements than is sensible …
This is true in terms of R. & D. resources which are likely to be available and also of production resources. In looking at establishments the principles I would like to see the Government trying to establish are whether there is any real fundamental difference between, for example, naval, army or air force radar establishments. Would it not be better to concentrate all the guided weapon work and all the radar work in one group. For instance, the Royal Radar Establishment and the Admiralty Research Weapons Establishment have both radar and guided weapons groups. This is the sort of rationalisation we must start to look at.
In looking at the communications establishment, we see that there are three establishments in the defence field and four outside defence, but they are largely Government-owned. Is there room for rationalisation in these communication establishments? We see weapons in terms of explosives, the atomic energy establishment, explosive R and D, and so on. Is there a case for rationalisation there? Any one-service research establishment needs to be justified. I am not saying


that there are not cases where it cannot be justified. Any research establishments primarily operating in the same areas need to be justified. The argument has always been that they cannot be fitted in to one site and that there are no existing facilities available, but we must be prepared to make tough decisions about the actual research areas in which we are to operate while all the time bearing in mind the relationshop of intra-mural research to extra-mural research.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has pointed to this fact and felt that there was a tendency for defence research establishments to have too large a proportion of intra-mural work and this has been criticised, to, by the Rayner Report. It is a difficult problem. I would not disguise the fact that it is easy for us to say that because the defence budget has come down so must the R. and D. be reduced to an equivalent amount. The relative elasticity of R. and D. to the defence budget varies and it does not necessarily bear a direct relationship. Indeed, as we take up a major European defence role, the need for increased research may be even greater.
Having made those general comments, I turn to more specific aspects of the Rayner Report, and I shall also discuss the Select Committee's Report. I was for all too short a time a member of the Select Committee. I had started on the defence research investigation and had previously been on the first project, on nuclear energy. I have a very warm affection for the Science and Technology Select Committee.
When we look at the Report of the Select Committee, we should be honest with ourselves. Its prime purpose and most important rôle is an educative one. First, it is educative for Parliament and gives us the ability to have debates here among members who are well informed on the subject. It is also a matter of public education. It provides a forum for discussion and one where people are able to make their comments freely on such a sensitive subject as defence research. It is a forum which has never been available before. When one reads the evidence, one sees many viewpoints, many of them conflicting, collected together in a document of immense value. Certainly the impact of a Select Committee

Report inside a Ministry is a good one. It makes the Ministry assess its priorities and think about problems. Though we may differ on the recommendations, I go as far as saying that in some ways they are the least important part of this Report. That is not to say that I do not agree with some of them. However, the major rôle of the Select Committee is an educative, probing one, getting information that it is difficult for other bodies to obtain.
I was glad that the hon. Gentleman laid stress on what I regard as the Rayner Report's single most important recommendation. It is this fairly mandatory rule that will operate from now on that 15 per cent. of forecast development expenditure must be incurred before any decision is taken to go to full development. This is a very difficult decision to keep as a rule. The pressures on Ministers and the Department to go to full production early with a new weapons system and an individual Service clamouring for it are very strong. Paragraph 21 of the Rayner Report could not, however, be more vehement, and I am glad that the Government appear to have accepted it. It should only be in very special circumstances that a project goes to full production before it has incurred 15 per cent of forecast development expenditure.
The Select Committee had a good deal to say about collaborative research, as did Rayner. I am not so happy about this. The Rayner Report talks about
… the passing abroad of industrial know-how to the ultimate disadvantage of the nation.
It talks about the disadvantage to exports. I believe that it has under-emphasised the importance of international collaborative projects, and it has done it at a time when collaborative research is still in its infancy. We are still learning how to collaborate. In defence, we have more progress to report in international collaborative projects than in almost any other area. It has shown the way in important respects.
The vital need for an effective defence research and development collaboration is to get agreement on strategic philosophy, on the tactical doctrine and on operational requirements. I do not think that we obtain that agreement early enough, especially in N.A.T.O. My plea


is that we should have intra-N.A.T.O. feasibility studies on future weapons systems, and that we should start the process of collaboration at a far earlier stage than hitherto. In short start right at the most early operational requirement stage.
If N.A.T.O.'s effectiveness is to be improved within existing financial resources, there is a great deal to be said for a far greater degree of rationalisation of equipment across national forces than exists at present. In the N.A.T.O. central front, for example, there may be as many as 15 different aircraft types in operation. We know that in the case of joint exercises at sea, it would be of considerable help to have frigates with very much the same equipment, even exactly the same frigates. For instance, A.S.W. helicopters which can operate from other ships would be a great advantage. I do not have to remind hon. Members that we are facing Warsaw Pact countries with a high degree of unification of equipment. We are often facing them with single national equipments which bear very little relationship to those of their allies.
As we collaborate in N.A.T.O., so the European technological capacity is increased and we become less dependent on United States equipment and technology. That is good. There is also a much greater chance that commercial firms in participating countries will be brought together not only into closed collaborative arrangements but also for the creation of European, multi-national firms which, I strongly believe, is the way that we should go. If defence procurement can stimulate the growth of integrated European firms, it is to be welcomed.
The transfer of areas of research and development to other countries was a subject that the Select Committee discussed. It was mentioned in the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who was then Secretary of State for Defence. He gave examples of a N.A.T.O. country perhaps renouncing all work in underwater detection, and another in some branch of aerospace. This is an ideal which will not come easily. However, there is a need in N.A.T.O. to concentrate research and development facilities and then to pool resources. Some of the smaller nations especially could make a real contribution

if they concentrated their resources. A great deal has been done through the N.A.T.O. Industrial Advisory Group. But my plea is that at, the feasibility stage of any major project, N.A.T.O. countries which can work together should collaborate.
In my speech so far, I have been fairly welcoming of the Rayner Report. I now come to some detailed criticisms. Paragraphs 62, 63 and 88 say that
… the procurement organisation should be largely autonomous, making its own appointments.
They talk about "managerial accountability". Throughout the Report, there is a clear-cut feeling that this new organisation must have its own staff and its own freedom.
I can only report on my two years in Government, ending now nearly a year ago. I believe that progress on the Fulton Report and changing the Civil Service has been lamentable and that the Civil Service Department in many cases has adopted much of the old restrictive attitude of the Treasury. Unless the new chief executive is to fight for this freedom, I believe that the organisation is still-born before it starts. If managerial accountability is to mean anything, he must have the degree of managerial freedom that goes with it. I wonder how many of his struggles have been fought on this front.
We welcome the Government's statement about the introduction of legislation to allow the "golden bowler" system for civil servants. The urgency for this cannot be overstated. At the moment, it is impossible to phase out someone who cannot do his present job. As industry has recognised and as other professions have recognised, so too must we recognise that we have to be generous in our treatment of those being phased out of employment. The money spent is an investment, rather than retaining someone in the position that he cannot fulfil. This is probably the single most important and urgent requirement advocated by the Fulton Report. Lip service has been paid to it by successive Governments, but still we see no action. If ever a piece of legislation needed to be brought before this House quickly, it is that.
We are still only talking about the transferability of pension rights. One


looks for a change in the abolition of office terms. Anyone faced with the situation of having to implement the abolition of office terms realises that they are totally inadequate.
In looking at the salary scales for civil servants, I notice that he is asking for the right to make his own appointments. Does this mean that he will bring in people from outside industry? If so, will he have freedom to pay them what he thinks right? My struggles in this area were dismal failures. There was a total inability to get people to realise that they must pay the rate for the job. It causes, of course, problems in the Civil Service structure, but this degree of managerial freedom must go hand in hand with managerial accountability. I see no evidence that anybody has grasped this, whether in Government or in this House.
I turn now to another point. Paragraph 76 states:
our preference was and is to make the special position of the Sea, Land and Air Systems Controllers clear by making them 'additional' members of the Navy, Army and Air Force boards respectively".
We know what has happened since. Behind that paragraph there has been a major struggle in the Ministry of Defence. It is the old traditional and familiar struggle that the single services are not prepared to give up their control and power. They wish their own men to be in charge of these systems and to be answerable to them. I know that Ministers are as well seized of this as, I am sure, is Mr. Rayner. But again he has lost a battle there. I hope that he will fight to retain the right to appoint the best people.
Will these appointments as sea, land and air systems controllers always be air marshals for the air, admirals for the sea and generals for the land, or will the posts be available, for instance, to scientists who have been working in these spheres? Will the appointments be made by the Chief Executive of the Procurement Organisation or by the head of the individual service? Will it be mandatory to the appointment of that officer that he should have served at some time in his career within the Procurement Organisation, or, as is often the case now, are we to have somebody drafted in to deal with this highly complicated area of procurement

who may not have been previously involved in it?
Ministers must exert themselves more strongly about appointments in the centre. There has been an alarming tendency for Buggins' turn by service to dominate over appointments. We all believe that it should be the right man for the job, not necessarily by service, whether scientist. civil servant, or Service man. Many Service men have unique qualifications to serve as controllers. I have no doubt that in the majority of cases they will represent their own Services, but there should not be a pre-emptive right in this respect. I hope that this will also apply to the guided weapons controllers.
I am sure that Mr. Rayner has been assured that the concession about being a permanent member of boards does not matter, but it does. It is related back to the whole question of functional ministers, again an issue which this Government have ducked. Within a few days of taking office they overrode the recommendation of the very important Headquarters Organisation Committee. They introduced partisan politics into what was a pure organisational change. They know it, and they will regret the change. The sooner they tackle the system of the junior ministers being attached to the different services, which is and will be disruptive in this organisation, and the sooner they tackle the rôle of the Service Boards in the Ministry of Defence, the better.
Having said that, may I say that I believe that this Procurement Executive is the right way ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) will draw attention to the problems of aerospace. We do not underestimate them. We know that the Government faced an extremely difficult choice in this area. We wish the Procurement Executive well. An executive which was to some extent given the same degree of managerial freedom and accountability was the Polaris Executive, with which I had a close association. It was an outstanding success. This was largely because there was a definite rôle for it. There were some exceptionally able officers in charge who pursued their difficult and complex task well, met dates, and kept within budgets. It can be done.
Defence is a difficult area of Government research and development. There is a need for choice. We wish the Procurement Executive well; we wish Mr. Rayner well. We realise that it is introducing many new aspects. It will be the first time that service officers are likely to serve as accounting officers and be answerable to this House.
We in this House must also accept a responsibility. There is a need for us to be more generous towards mistakes. If we want people to take risks and to manage effectively, mistakes will be made. I do not suggest that they will be major mistakes; I hope they will only be minor mistakes. I think that Mr. Rayner's comments on the Public Accounts Committee and other Committees of this House may be true. We are feared within the Ministry. People feel that parliamentary scrutiny can be too minute, detailed and unforgiving. As Parliament uses the Select Committee Procedure more and more to scrutinise and to inform, so we should become more tolerant of the situation and civil servants and Servicemen within the Ministry will see that we are their friends, not their enemies.
The new Expenditure Committee and the Defence and Foreign Affairs subgroup of that Committee gives to this House, almost for the first time, the Defence Committee which many of us have felt for some time was needed. This degree of scrutiny of defence is essential.
I am sure that the House welcomes the organisation and hopes that it will be successful and will solve the difficult problems of demarcation between the interests of the services and of civilian industry as a whole.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I find myself very much in agreement with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) especially about the rôle of Select Committees and their need to probe and to inform the House. I shall return to some of his remarks later. The House knows that he was an extremely valuable member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology until he became a Minister in the last Government.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on his appointment and

on the way that he presented the Rayner Report and made references to the Select Committee.
This is a valuable debate because the Select Committee's Report was long and detailed. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who listened to representations for many months, that the Report should be debated now. It is unfortunate that a matter involving £260 million of public money in research and development should not attract more hon. Members on this occasion. None the less, those who are present have some knowledge of the problems involved. I hope that when my hon. Friend winds up the debate he will reply to some of our comments.
I shall refer mainly to the organisation of research and development which is one of my main interests and is referred to in the Report. I shall refer especially to Appendix C of the Rayner Report where reference is made to the appointment of a Controller of Research and Development in defence matters.
The Chairman of the Select Committee at the time of the Report on defence research was the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Mr. Palmer). He was a very successful Chairman. Many tributes have been paid to him in the past and I pay tribute to him again today. He has told me how much he regrets that he cannot be present on this occasion, but he has an important engagement elsewhere. I have succeeded the hon. Gentleman as Chairman of the Committee during the past year.
It is a great pity that two years have elapsed since the Report was made. It is difficult for surviving members of the Select Committee to take part in the debate for that reason, though they have kept up with the subject.
The hon. Member for Sutton made clear that the prime purpose of a Select Committee is educative—this is right—and that it should be a forum for discussion. This is all the more reason, when an enormously important subject is reported upon in 218 paragraphs, that debates for the purpose of informing the House should take place fairly quickly after a report is made. Two years is a long time to wait. I was the Chairman of the Sub-Committee which visited N.A.T.O. with Dr. Ernest Davies, and I


confirm what the hon. Gentleman said about the failure of N.A.T.O. to tackle the problem of standardisation, especially when faced with the Warsaw Pact forces. This disturbed me considerably.
The only other surviving members of the Select Committee in this Parliament are my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who. I hope, will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because he has various aspects to discuss, and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), who also regrets that he cannot be here. The Report was widely discussed at the time and described as the best account so far of the workings of defence research. I think that was true in May, 1969.
A main theme of the Report is the need for closer links between defence research establishments and industry. This is a point which the answer of the Ministry of Defence at the end of 1969 did not deal with adequately. In the Report, there was a reasoned argument about this aspect. I found the Ministry's reply—and I am not making a party point, since my view was shared by all other members of the Select Committee—rather prim and brief. It did not deal with a number of the points raised. Little was done about the recommendations, although the last Government said that they had welcomed the inquiry.
The Report exposed grave weaknesses in the links with industry. It also criticised the financial control of budgets and project management. The ensuing White Paper denied most of the evidence taken by the Select Committee to the effect that the Treasury hindered an effective research and development programme. The evidence before the Committee from industry and from the cross-examination of many witnesses showed that the Treasury did hamper the activities of some of the committees. But it must be said that, in the subsequent White Paper—the "reply", as I call it—the limit of financial authority delegated to the Ministry was raised from £250,000 to £1 million, so the Government had taken note at any rate of some of the points we made. Obviously, they thought this a rather sensitive area for investigation, and I understand that that might well be so. Although at the time expenditure was £236 million and it is now, for 1970–71, £264 million, it was

the attitude to industry which was most criticised by the Select Committee. The Select Committee concluded on the evidence that industry should have a much bigger say in defence research plans.
This point was taken up very well by Mr. Rayner, and I join in the congratulations to him on his Report. But so far we have only had the rather pious statement that any suggestion that industry should participate in defence research planning would not be appropriate because the Government have to take the decisions. That may be so, but the recommendation which brought this reprimand from the last Government—it is contained in paragraph 145 of the Select Committee's Report—asked for better defined channels of communication with industry. That does not seem to me to be a very revolutionary suggestion. I want to comment on that, because we have to make progress. The Government's reply said that industry was in a different position from the Government that, unlike a Government Department, it was not an entity. The evidence taken by the Select Committee showed that the Ministry was a maze of committees and we found it difficult to find our way through them. I hope that there has been some simplification since then. What I am saying covers both Governments and any comments I make are not from a party point of view.
The reference to industry, with the douche of cold water poured on the recommendation for further participation by industry, was made when extra-mural expenditure was growing. It was £160 million then out of the total research and defence expenditure of £260 million. I hope, two years having elapsed, that there is a less circumscribed view about those with whom the Ministry should collaborate and that, now that Mr. Rayner has looked into the matter, his recommendations will be followed.
Paragraph 79 and Appendix C of the White Paper, dealing with procurement, are Mr. Rayner's proposals for the reorganisation of the defence research establishments. This is extremely important and the comments so far have been interesting. The Select Committee suggested a joint direction with industry, with joint boards of management from industry and the defence research establishments. Apparently, the Ministry of


Defence in the winter of 1969 thought this rather a joke. It did not think that we meant it seriously. It briefly looked at the suggested and said that it would not be appropriate.

All these questions relate to the need to bring industry in at an earlier stage and to allow it to participate in some of the early decisions on the research programme. That was the main theme of the Select Committee's Report. The defence research establishments are a vital part of any adequate programme, and I hope that they will long continue to be the key factor. There are 24 of them and it may well be—it is difficult to say without going into the matter more deeply than is done in the Rayner Report—that the proposal for a single, strong management is right. But it does not follow that the "rationalisation" which is rather vaguely talked about should necessarily mean the suppression of individual establishments and their reallocation physically under one organisation. Mr. Rayner obviously saw the point of view of industry here. In paragraph 82 of his Report he said:
Unless users have a relationship with suppliers at the earliest possible stage, a major source of help and guidance is prevented from making its proper contribution.

In relation to the defence research establishments and to the work they do becoming more public and of more use to industry, that is exactly what the Select Committee said two years ago, and the point should have been taken up before now.

Talk about "rationalisation" tends to be vague on these occasions. We have often debated the organisation of research and development, and vague talk leads, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, to uncertainty and poor morale among the people who work at these establishments. It must be the duty of the Government to avoid that as quickly as possible. I query whether the physically bringing together of the defence research establishments in one place is necessarily right. This often has a bad effect, even if there is a strong central management, on the quality of research. Bringing them under one location is objectionable for two reasons. It wastes the existing laboratories, though they can be used for

civilian purposes. Generally speaking, they have substantial capital resources, and the capital equipment has to be developed and expanded somewhere else.

I am sure that I speak for many of my colleagues on the Select Committee when I say that I am very much for independence in research. Indeed, this should be the philosophy of all Governments in this matter. However strong and central the management of research may be, and I agree that it should be in this case, it is important that a considerable degree of independence continues in individual establishments.

Under the Rayner scheme, the Controller of Development and Research will be a Ministry man who will have considerable power over the details of the research programme, not only financial but actual policy decisions. If the scheme is to put these D.R.E.s physically into bigger organisations, then there is a danger that the quality and individuality of research will be affected.

This is not to say that it should not be directed from the centre. I have already explained that in my view it should be. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will bear these points in mind, for we are dealing here with human beings; these people have worked in this sphere for a long time, they are being moved, perhaps not necessarily, and they will find that their work is affected.

There are many important points which one could make about the staff—about pensions, transferability and so on—which are very much in the minds of hon. Members today. We have raised them on many occasions in the past and we will continue to go on raising these matters. This point was made strongly in the Report of the Select Committee.

It was the view of the Select Committee that more could be done in industry, though it is dangerous to say this in general terms. We had several debates in the last Parliament on this question, when some of my hon. Friends took the view that a lot of work done in Government research establishments could be done by industry. For the big projects, and certainly for many of the defence projects, industry does not have the finance to do that. One must, therefore, keep this matter in perspective, bearing in mind that the proportion of extramural work has grown considerably.

I refer to the proposal in the Rayner Report to transfer Aldermaston to the Secretary of State for Defence. While Harwell is in my constituency, Aldermaston is not. It is over the boundary in the Newbury division. However, there is a considerable interchange between the two and it is important to remember the civil work, as distinct from the defence work, done on nuclear research at Aldermaston.

There would be a considerable risk to the civil work if a drastic reorganisation were to take place and Aldermaston were placed under the Ministry of Defence. Was the D.T.I. consulted before this proposal was made? I see some reference in the introductory part of the White Paper to this and to the fact that talks are going on, but it would be a serious matter for scientific morale if there was not proper consultation with those concerned.

The work done by the D.R.E.s should be more widely known. I accept what has been said about the need for less secrecy, though there must be security at top level in certain defence matters. If the knowledge available in the D.R.E.s were more easily available to the public and industry, this would be of great advantage. It would certainly help industry to join in a successful and balanced research and development programme.

I regret in some ways that it is not possible to go for the long-term R. & D. defence model which was suggested by the Select Committee. I appreciate that there are formidable problems, nevertheless, it can be said that the Select Committee did a useful job in posing this difficulty. It made the Ministry think, and that is the function of the Select Committee. I am sure that it will continue to perform this duty by posing these problems and probing the Government's policy, thus performing the task of a Select Committee of this kind by making those inside the machinery of Government think again.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and I were colleagues on the Select Committee for the first two and a half years of its life. I came to have the highest regard both for the crispness

and for the relevance of his questioning. Indeed, had things worked out slightly differently I would have enjoyed the pleasure of working under him in his new position as Chairman of the whole of the Select Committee.
One important question which the hon. Gentleman asked was how two years could have elapsed since this Report was presented without the House having debated it. Well, I can explain it. I should congratulate the colleague who will almost certainly speak following me, the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who is Chairman of the 1922 Committee. It is he who is responsible. He spent a great deal of time asking for a debate to take place. Repeatedly at Business Question Time he asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), the then Leader of the House, when the Report would be debated only to be told, "Not next week". Finally, he has been putting the same question to his right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House.
I imagine that, considering the important part that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely will have to play in the Common Market negotiations through the summer, his right hon. Friend, the Government Business manager, would do almost anything to oblige him. If I were the Leader of the House on the benches opposite I would certainly be anxious to oblige the one colleague who could prove vital in delivering my party's votes when a decision on the matter of the Market, which we shall be debating throughout the summer, comes to be taken.
Be that as it may, had we not had the Chairman of the 1922 Committee personally interested in this subject, this Report would probably have accumulated dust and gone undebated, with the Government contenting themselves with a short debate on the Transfer of Functions Order, on Rayner, in which some of us took part. I am glad that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely is likely to speak after me, for I am an open man and I propose to be extremely candid about a number of matters in relation to the Select Committee. In other words, I intend to say what I think.
I wish, first, to refer to some of those who would have been speaking in this debate had they not been defeated at the


1970 General Election. In the work of Select Committees there is no political kudos, just a lot of hard work done for remarkably little dividend—at least, remarkably little political dividend.
The House will understand if I grieve for some of my former colleagues, among them Dr. Ernest Davies, who played a particularly active part and was my copartner in many views on the Select Committee, Ray Dobson, Eric Moonman, Bob Howarth, Arnold Gregory, Brian Parkyn, who made a particularly valuable contribution, and Eric Lubbock who, though not of my party, made a massive contribution to the work of the Select Committee.
It is sad that there was such a massacre of those who, regardless of party, did a great deal of Select Committee work. I would like to see the televising if not of the House of Commons, then at least of some of the confrontations in the Select Committee, which would make extremely intimate and fascinating television, and allow people to see Parliament at work.
I should like to go on from this to be a bit harsher. I had wished that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) were here, because I would have wished to say this in his presence. In my view, he was an exceptionally good Chairman, on the long Report which we did on nuclear power policy. It can always be said of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central that he played a crucial and massive part as Chairman in getting the Select Committee on Science and Technology off to a good start and in all the work he did in creating an atmosphere in which it was taken seriously in the scientific world. All that is totally to his credit. But in my view, together with leading Conservative members of the Committee, he simply should not have allowed this inquiry on the defence research establishments to drag on and on, and on. We were talking about it in 1966, but, to be fair, it was conceived in June, 1967. The first meeting was in December, 1967. The evidence was taken until June, 1968. The draft report was not completed until March, 1969—a large time gap. Now we are debating it at the end of May, 1971—four long years.
If they are to be effective, Select Committees must be crisp. If I were to make a serious criticism it would be that some of the members of the Select Committee—I do not exclude one or two hon. Members present today—thought that they were a Royal Commission. I am glad that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely will have a chance to comment, because this is a very mistaken view of the job of a Select Committee. Members of Parliament have all sorts of things to do, and we must not beguile ourselves into thinking that we can serve as a Royal Commission. Partly because it drooled on so long, a number of Members, some of whom have left the House, lost interest. That is my impression. The result is that this Report—unlike the previous Report and unlike some of the Sub-Committee reports, which were very good—if we were to be candid, is verbose, badly written, sloppily constructed, ponderous and unintelligible in parts. In future, what we should learn is that if any subject looks like taking more than a parliamentary year, it should be taken by an organisation other than a Select Committee of the House of Commons.
As for my position, to which I shall refer later, I was not the only one who was fretting and impatient by the summer of 1968. I think I speak on behalf of Ernest Davies in saying that he felt the same way. In brief, a great deal of the report has become dated. It has been overtaken by Rayner.
However, I make one or two specific references. Paragraph 56 states:
The Ministry of Defence have estimated the increase in the total cost of a project shared equally between two nations to be 10–20 per cent., making the share of one country about 60 per cent. of the cost of going it alone".
I listened with care to what the Minister said this afternoon about competing international contracts. The situation is rather different from what it was even three or four years ago. I ask whether the calculation that the Select Committee gathered from its evidence about the additional cost of cross-frontier contracts still holds, because this is of a good deal of significance in military procurement thinking for the future.
I was also interested in the Minister's reference to what Rayner had to say about delay and the worries about the


loss of know-how in the context of international military contracts. This is an important subject and perhaps the Minister would comment—either when he winds up the debate or by letter afterwards if the relevant civil servants are not available and he cannot comment from his own knowledge; I do not decry his knowledge in any way.
Another matter of consequence arises out of paragraph 78. This is the whole question of the delay on holding contracts. As we cannot insert things in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I shall read out quickly the relevant points.
We were told by Plessey's that there could be years of delay betwen their being told that they had been selected for a contract on the basis of competitive project studies and the beginning of actual development. They bore much of this delay on their own account and usually only secured a holding contract as a result of putting pressure on the Department concerned. The Company later submitted an example of a case where holding contracts had covered a period of over twelve months. The Electronic Engineering Association were similarly critical of the extensive delays caused by holding contracts but agreed that the fault was as much their own as that of the Ministry.
I remember clearly what this argument was about. The question I ask is whether, in the Department's opinion, the whole problem that surrounds holding contracts has in any way been solved. To make sense of it, I had better read paragraph 79:
The Treasury assured us that they were 'deeply conscious' of the possible effects of holding contracts. They pointed out, however, that these were likely to be necessitated while political decisions were being taken about the precise requirements of defence policy. The waste of money involved in going ahead with development of a weapon that was not going to be needed would be greater than the cost of holding contracts covering the decisionmaking period.
Therefore, it is still a very current subject and I should like a view from the Defence Department as to whether progress has been made in this direction.
I should like to mention also paragraph 160 and Byfleet, which was mentioned by the Minister. I do not quite understand—I hope I took down the phrase correctly—the Minister's slightly sharp remark that we really ought to understand that Byfleet was not the plum in the centre of the stage. Would I be wrong in thinking that the whole idea of a defence operation or analysis establishment has been sidetracked and down-graded some-what?

The recommendatiaon in paragraph 160 is of relevance.
We recommend that the future planning of defence research and development should be carried out by using a very wide range of the techniques known as strategic studies, force structure and weapon system studies and operational analysis. We further recommend that the Defence Operational Analysis Establishment should be expanded and provided with the necessary facilities to pursue these studies.
The Department may not be wrong. I am not offering a dogmatic opinion. But is the Department deciding to go in a different direction? This is what I have understood to be happening.
Again from the Select Committee report, paragraph 183 states:
We recommend that the Weapon Development Committee should be given authority to sanction prescribed variations in the financial programme of major projects, and that the supervision of their exercise of this authority should be a function of a House of Commons Committee having the general oversight of of all defence matters submitted to Parliament. The establishment of such a Committee has, of course, been canvassed on broader grounds elsewhere than by us.
Do the Government consider that, by setting up a defence Sub-Committee of the Public Expenditure Committee, they have covered this point? Related to that, and as indicated by my interjection earlier, do the Government consider that now that the Weapons Development Committee has been abolished by Rayner, they will have the Treasury brought in at an initial stage? It may be right to get rid of the Weapons Development Committee. All I am saying is that if they do this they will have to have the Treasury in at an initial stage.
Paragraph 184 states:
A subsidiary, but extremely urgent, question about which we have received evidence from various quarters is that of the extent of the financial responsibility which should be entrusted to project managers.
I should like to record the fact that I welcome very much what Rayner had to say on the whole question of project management. The only mystery is why this was not done before in the Ministry of Defence.
I now come to the Rayner Report itself. If I can be brutal about it, one reason for the difference between the effect of Rayner and the effect of the Select Committee is that the former Report is far better written than the


latter. It is much more intelligible. It is crisper. It is no wonder that it has had a greater public impact. People are able to understand what is produced.
There are various things in the Rayner Report about which I am not very clear, but they are comparatively minor in relation to the whole Report. It is said that there ought to be R. and D. outside projects. If I understand Rayner rightly, the controllers are not responsible for these outside projects. The question is who is to identify the work that is not directly connected with establishments. In particular, the crucial question is who initiates it? Who is to initiate the extra-mural work?
Little mention is made in Rayner of buying overseas. How is the question of overseas purchasing to be dealt with, and how is the sales effort to be integrated with United Kingdom procurement? I am not clear on that issue.
Another source of worry is R. and D. costs. The general feeling of Rayner—I do not think that I do it an injustice—is that there is no need for the controllers to worry over this. I am not at all clear on what basis R. and D. costs will be included in the final export product, or in the internal accounting in Whitehall. Is a levy to be included in the price to recover R. and D. costs? I am not clear how price is to be calculated, but that may be my fault.
The Minister referred to the closest links with industry in the formulation of operational requirements. The hon. Member for Abingdon has, to my certain knowledge, been concerned with this issue for more than ten years, but every time, in answer to him and to other hon. Members, we get the same reply from the Government, "We are about to get the closest relations with industry". It is no use pretending that these relations are close, particularly with the motor industry, because they are not. I do not want to go into detail, but I am prepared to talk in private to the Defence Minister, as I have done, about the dissatisfactions of the motor industry.
There is an inclination in Rayner—and I am glad of this—to put R. and D. out to industry which is market-oriented.

If that is done, the financial vote of the establishment is put down, unless one increases the total burden. Here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) that there are terrible human problems in anything that is called shrinkage or, as he prefers it, surgery. Having listened to my hon. Friend on this and other occasions, I am coming to his view that shrinkage may be a bad word to use, and that surgery, cutting things out, is more relevant. There are great problems of schooling, housing and pension rights, and I therefore ask the Minister to explain what he meant when he talked about exploratory development and more selectivity. Did he mean surgery, or did he mean shrinkage, or did he mean anything in particular at all?
I think that there is a considerable problem of the morale of the career scientific service, and a dichotomy and real dilemma. I raised this issue of the mechanism for shrinkage in the Transfer of Functions debate, and in reply the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department, said that he would be
keeping a beady eye on the question of staff economies …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 193]
Keeping a beady eye on something may mean anything that one wants it to mean, and the time has come for a clear indication of what the Government are going to do about it.
I hesitate to approve my hon. Friend's request that Ministers should exert themselves in the choice of civil servants. Here I should be more cautious than my hon. Friend was, and perhaps for once less reckless than I usually am. This is a frightful difficulty. We might have in miniature other situations like that between my former colleague, now Lord George-Brown, and Sir Con O'Neill. I am not sure that that is the right relationship for politicians to have with civil servants. Who will do the appointing? I would go along with my hon. Friend if the appointing were done by the Minister, in consultation with a number of other people, but I think that it results in an extremely delicate situation to have politicians interfering, or being thought to be interfering, in a sector which the


Civil Service understandably regards as peculiarly its own.
My hon. Friend raised a matter on paragraph 28 of the Rayner Report. It is probably true that the Civil Service has taken considerable notice of the Senior Committee of this House. As one who served on it for three years, I confess that one of the things of which I am least proud in my political life is the way in which I nagged and nagged the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to have before us Sebastian de Ferranti to deal with the question of Bloodhound. The whole of the Bloodhound issue, and the Bristol Siddeley matter that followed, were not as clear-cut as I thought at the time, but I was then a more brash Member than I am now, when I see that there are considerable problems.
Where I did agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, was when he raised the whole question of the number of laboratories that we have. I should like to be specific, just to help my hon. Friend The Services Electronics Research Laboratory at Baldock is working on gallium phosphide. That is also being done at the R.R.E., Malvern. Some of us have seen the work on gallium phosphide. Why does it have to be done in two places? This question has been asked time and again, although their displays at the recent Physics Exhibition were good. There is the Services Electronics Research Laboratory at Baldock, under the Admiralty. There is the Ministry of Defence Underwater Weapons Establishment at Portland. There is the Admiralty Materials Laboratory at Holton Heath in Dorset. There is the Admiralty Compass Observatory at Ditton Park. And so they go on. It seems that there is a massive number of establishments.
I do not want to make a wholly destructive speech. I therefore remind the House of the need to get as many as possible of these establishments either into industry or, where appropriate, into universities. I refer in particular to an answer that was given by Sir Denning Pearson in June, 1968, when I asked him:
'"… what policy conclusions do you draw from your allegation that establishments should avoid being sidetracked into development work which is the proper function of industry.

His answer was the statement of a very real problem. He said:
This is a very major question and strikes deeply into the roots of the development of our industrial technological companies in this country. We are entirely convinced, and are prepared to give evidence from industry, that the development of a technologically based industry cannot be divorced from the research, design and development which originally create the industry and which maintain its momentum. In other words, in any technologically based industry inevitably the momentum of industry derives from those who have been concerned with research, design and development. It might be invidious to give comparisons, but one can take perhaps extreme comparisons which have been so well-known that the industries concerned would not feel offended by anything I said.
At one extreme we have the shipbuilding industry where a majority of the naval architectural talent in Great Britain is concentrated in the Corps of Naval Construction, and has been for many years. This, undoubtedly, has led to a dearth of technological talent among a majority of the shipbuilding companies in this country. This is one of the main contrasts between our shipbuilding industry and other industries. The majority of technological naval architectural talent, in addition to ship design talent in this country, has been in the Corps of Naval Construction.
This can be repeated several times over. Here are talented people who go to these establishments and, I believe, very often get into a rut in a nine-to-five job. Just as the Robbins Committee argued that in order to be a good teacher in a university one had to do current research, it may also be true that in order to do good research one must either have a position in industry or do some teaching. There is a great deal to be learned from that.
Finally, I would like to speak personally for three minutes. There is no malice, and I hope no special pleading here. I was deeply involved as a member of a Select Committee in a privilege case. I speak like this now simply because I would not like any other hon. Member to go through the same experience because it is a very formidable and appalling experience to be confronted by this House and to face the Privileges Committee and then a full debate on one's personal conduct. However thick-skinned any of us may pretend to be in politics, I simply would not believe anybody who said this


kind of thing did not have a very considerable effect, and for some time, on him; because we are all sensitive to a point and we would be less than human if it did not.
I would like gently, and in subdued voice, to make these points. Nothing has been done about privilege either by this Government or by the last and I certainly understood it to be the very general feeling on both sides of the House that all the issues that arose out of that privilege case ought to be faced up to and gone into and certainly the Report of the Privileges Committee should be seriously considered and debated. Both Governments have had their opportunity and the time will come in one form or another, sooner or later, when someone else will find himself not in an exactly similar position but perhaps in a related position and we shall all wonder why we did not tackle it before.
My second comment is that privilege is very precipitate. I am not asking for things to be "fixed" in any case, least of all mine; but we as a House have to consider a cooling-off period before we set in train the whole mechanics of the Committee on Privilege, and to do away with the idea of having to raise it at the earliest possible opportunity before any thought has been given to the matter.
Thirdly—and I know that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely is a very generous man and will take this in the spirit in which I say it—there has to be a certain clarity in Select Committees whether we are sitting in public or private. I have no axe to grind now, but I stick to the point I made at the time of the discussion at Porton; I thought we had decided it should be a public discussion. There were no clear minutes of this, at any rate, so that it was every man to his own interpretation. It was a subject on which at least there were grounds for doubt. I would ask the House to recall that this was a Committee which was sitting in public in the House of Commons, with the Press present.
It was also said at the time that a note was circulated to members of the Committee with certain instructions about confidentiality. The Clerk is not a liar, he is a very truthful man; and I have no doubt he circulated it. But at least I did not

put it on my file and was not conscious of it. This is true. This does not mean that I did not get it but it means that as a member of a Select Committee like other busy Members, one is overwhelmed with paper, and as long as there are the lockers and facilities that exist in this House it is ridiculous to circulate supposedly secret documents to Members of Parliament. I feel, as a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, that if secret documents are to be circulated they must be treated in the same way as the Exchange Equalisation Account, locked up in a Committee Room of the Public Accounts Committee and available to Members as and when they want to see it; so we must be clear about this. Ironically—and no names, no pack drill,—I did pick out of the wastepaper basket in the Library a copy of the very Select Committee minutes of which I was reprimanded—and I am making no complaint—for giving to the Observer.
It was done in a hurry, as I told the Privileges Committee, in order to put a case straight. But the fact that this supposedly secret document could find its way into a wastepaper basket in the Library of the House reveals that we have to make up our minds one way or the other whether these documents are or are not secret.
One point which I would make on the Committee on Privilege as a whole is that if any hon. Member finds himself—I hope he will not—in my position, he must be allowed to take a lawyer or and colleague in with him. As it happened, I was determined to be wholly truthful and as soon as this document and article was mentioned, I said I had given it to the Observer. But I was made out to be confused, partly from questions to which there was no answer, which were meaningless questions, as for instance from my very good friend the former right hon. Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire, who has left the House; and when a man is faced, without a lawyer, with a string of questions in what is naturally a tense situation, it can easily be that he gives rather misleading answers.
It so happened that the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, picked me up and said, "Mr. Dalyell, you cannot really mean that". I am making no complaint about the present Prime Minister, for his questions were


very fair. This kind of an interrogation raises questions for this House as to how we ought to deal with these matters. If a Member of Parliament is to appear before the Attorney-General and his colleagues he must be allowed either a lawyer or political friends, fellow M.Ps., with whom he can consult. The Committee on Privilege is a court.
There is little more to be said on this, Mr. Speaker. I would hope to catch your eye during a debate when privilege is brought up, as I hope it will be. But finally, on Porton, it is my view, as it always was, that until there is multilateral disarmament we must have the Chemical Defence Establishment and Micro-Biological Defence Establishment but that it should be handed over from the Ministry of Defence to the Department of Health and Social Security. I hope that the Government, in consultation with the new Director of Porton, will seriously consider whether M.R.E. & C.D.E. can be handed over to where they belong, the Department of Health and Social Security.

8.30 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: It was distressing to us all, both now and on the earlier occasion, that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) should ever have got involved in a case of privilege. Having been on the visit which led to the incident—and I believe I am the only Member from this side of the House, although at the time I was sitting on the other side—naturally, I am particularly conscious of the regrettable nature of the whole exercise. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I should not like to follow him in what he said about the Committee on Privilege. I hope that none of us will ever have to appear before it. Not having been present to watch his embarrassment, I should not like now to say anything which might add to it, but I have always thought, right the way through, that what the hon. Member did, he did unintentionally, and that he was not aware at the time of the full implications. I have always accepted that. The House has dealt with the matter, and I should like to leave it there tonight. I want to say something about Porton later on.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) has just left us. I was particularly glad that he reminded us that there is a human

aspect in the whole matter. When we are talking about research into new weapons and their development, it is very easy to forget that individual human beings are involved. Probably the most human piece of evidence ever given to a Select Committee occurs in the evidence given to us at West Byfleet. When we were talking about the staff the witness said in answer to question 2018:
We recruit most of these people locally by local advertising and they stay with us, on average, a little over two years. They are generally attractive young girls in the period between school and marriage and our turnover is high.
That is one of the most delightful human pieces of evidence ever given to a Select Committee.
It is very important that we recognise throughout that the finest machine in the world will not achieve the results that it should if it has the wrong man in it. One man who in the machinery of government during World War II set an exemplary example of how a soldier can work with politicians was the late Lord Ismay, who was a very great friend of my family. As a boy, I remember him. and in the years leading up to his death it was one of my delights to talk with him about the various things the Governments of that day were up to. In particular, I recall the occasion, which might be said to be during the diarchy of the Mountbatten-Zuckerman combine, when we were debating in 1963 the Defence (Transfer of Functions) Bill. He warned me then of the terrible danger of over-rigidity in anything to do with defence. In particular, he feared that we were going to imitate the German OKW, if we were not very careful. He stressed the need for flexibility and having the Cabinet in a sufficiently dominant position, with adequate military liaison with its Defence and Overseas Policy Committee.
In his memoirs he wrote something particularly relevant to what was said by the hon. Member for Sutton. He wrote:
There is a type of senior official, both civil and military, who get more and more set in their ways as they ascend the ladder of promotion. These able, upright, worthy men do not like the even tenor of their lives disturbed, and resent dynamic ministerial action.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be


in dynamic Ministerial control on this front. There are already danger signs going up very fast. They occur in particular in what the White Paper, Cmnd. 4641, says about the Treasury. It is very important that my hon. Friend recognises where he must watch it. The latter half of paragraph 73 says:
The procurement organisation must, in our view, be a single entity and research, development and production resources must likewise be treated as a unity within the Ministry of Defence and in relation to the Treasury and the Civil Service Department.
Paragraphs 100 and 101 are perhaps more important. The hon. Member for West Lothian has already touched on the position of the Weapons Development Committee and the Treasury. That Committee is being abolished, and I do not weep to see it go, because I think that that was where more money and time were wasted, and more grief was caused, than probably in any other part of the whole of the old system. Paragraph 101 says:
The Weapons Development Committee will cease to exist if our proposals are accepted. It will therefore be essential in our view to make alternative arrangements to keep the Treasury as fully informed on equipment matters as they are at present. The Treasury would also continue to attend meetings of the Defence Research Council.
Despite what the hon. Member for West Lothian said about the English of our Report, I hope that he will at least pay careful attention to what the Treasury said to us. Of all the lamentable performances before a Select Committee, that morning with the Treasury was ghastly. It was harrowing to feel that any Government Department in as influential a position as the Treasury had its effrontery. It was apparently obliged to tell us that it does not give any priority as between defence and other things, that it works under no such instructions. To me, that was one of the most dreadful days, because it confirmed all that I had always thought as a soldier and a great deal that I had learnt as a politician. If we have not yet learnt that the Treasury, of all Departments, should be under clear orders as to its priorities, and that defence must be the first, we have only ourselves to blame if history repeats itself and we go naked into war again. I have said in the House before, and say again tonight, that no Government Department has more of its fellow

countrymen's blood dripping from its hands than the Treasury has.
It looks to me as though very few lessons have yet been learned on this front. If my hon. Friend the Minister wants to make his policy work, he must ensure that the Treasury is made aware of the importance of giving defence research priority over a great deal of other research. If he is to make the new set-up work properly, those from the Treasury must be men who are fit to be there. As the hon. Member for Sutton said—and I fully endorse all that he said, the business of Buggins's turn must be got out of this part of the system. I hope that my hon. Friend will be resolute. I strongly suspect, reading between the lines of the Rayner White Paper, that there is a battle yet to be won there. I am sure that Mr. Rayner and his team will want all the support from my hon. Friend that they can have to stand up against the Treasury.
I suspect that the new Committee system will be pretty elaborate, with subcommittees and so on. We should recognise, as we were also told in the Select Committee, that ultimately it is the men in those committees who will make or mar their work. If there is the old boy net operating well enough, and the man who is the old boy is a good enough chap and qualified enough, it will work. One can have the finest committee system in the world, but if the wrong men are on the committees, one will not get the results one needs. This point was well brought out by one of the air marshals before us, and I feel that it is the essence of the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) said many wise words about management and the relationship between industry and Government. The evidence I enjoyed most in the Select Committee came from Commander Pasley-Tyler, who had a big responsibility behind the scenes, if not actively, for the success of Nimrod. I was in Canberra the other day with a Select Committee and Nimrod was taking part in the air show there. The conditions surrounding the progress of Nimrod were propitious compared with some other projects, because a certain amount of things were already on the shelf and were brought together. The Americans use freely the terms "building bricks"


and "building blocks" with which to describe the various parts of other projects which can be used in a different one. A project which is deliberately developed with a view to use later on is denned quite well. The best part of the last Government's White Paper on the Select Committee's Report, published in December, 1969, was that which said, in dealing with the merits of the "building bricks" approach to project execution:
It can, for example, cover:

(a) components which are developed in anticipation of the formal initiation of a project and are incorporated in it but have no other application.
(b) components which are designed with a number of different applications in mind for the purpose, among other things, of standardisation.
(c) components which are developed on a speculative basis in sufficient variety to provide a range of choice within a particular field."

Project components which were virtually all there in avionics were able to be taken off the shelf for the Nimrod project. The job shines out as a glowing example of how to do a project on time within the budget and one which works at the end of the day. That is what we must aim for I am sure that, eventually, projects will be improved but there will be failures, and I believe that the Rayner Report recommends sensible improvements in the machine which should lead to better results than we have had up to now.
I turn now to the subject of Porton. I want to quote evidence given by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who was Defence Secretary at the time. In answer to Question No. 1291. he said:
One has to accept there is a potential threat to this country from both chemical and biological weapons. The view we have taken is that we must maintain, as you were told at Porton. an adequate defence capability in both fields. In the field of chemical weapons we have a very good defence capability indeed so far as our services are concerned. It is not so easy to conceive of the use of chemical weapons against a civil population in these islands. Their use against soldiers in Europe is something which one must almost expect if there were a war in Europe. We have not felt it necessary, nor indeed did the previous Government, to develop retaliatory capability here, because we have nuclear weapons …".
That is a frightening philosophy. We now know that the Soviet troops in Europe are armed with chemical warfare

capacity of some sort; they are not merely equipped with protective clothing in case someone uses chemical warfare against them. In other words, in Europe there is a high potential of chemical weapons being used in the event of war breaking out.
I say to the hon. Member for West Lothian that this is not a matter for the Department of Health to cope with. I believe that the establishment at Porton has been on a shoestring for far too long. The work the men do there is a very high form of dedicated work. This country might be in a far more dangerous position today if they had not been doing it. I have waited for the opportunity to say this in the House ever since the incident in which the hon. Gentleman was involved in the unfortunate matter of privilege.
I believe that we are expecting of these people a responsibility which, if it were not for the fact that they are the most patriotic and dedicated people in the country, we would not get from them. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass this on to them. Whether they work on chemical warfare or micro-biological warfare, it is essential that they should safeguard our interests so that we are aware of how these ghastly things can be inflicted upon people.

Mr. Dalyell: I agree.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: This is not a matter for the Medical Research Council. Obviously it has to be consulted from time to time, but I would say that this is essentially a military threat. It must remain under the aegis of the Defence Department in some way or other. I hope to see what is absolutely fundamental to this—a complete re-think in Cabinet as to how we are to interpret the Geneva Agreement and the other agreements covering this matter.
I strongly suspect that what may have been all right for the Government before last was not necessarily right for the last Government and it is highly doubtful whether it is right for this Government. I am prepared to believe that what has been happening east of the Iron Curtain in Europe demands a complete reappraisal of Cabinet policy on this matter, because there are two ways of interpreting the Geneva Agreement. The


Russians are interpreting it one way to mean that they are legitimately entitled to arm themselves with retaliatory means should they be attacked.
We have always taken the view, as I understand it, that we should only be ready to cope with anything that might be inflicted upon us by protecting our own people so far as we can, but we are not armed with any chemical weapons—there are none. If what is happening east of the Iron Curtain is what I believe it to be, if Russian troops in Europe are now armed with chemical warfare weapons of various sorts, it is the duty of the Cabinet to reconsider this.
The conclusions it should arrive at must depend on the highest expert advice available, which I am obviously not in a position to give. If it comes to the conclusion, on the best advice, that it ought to revise the governing position which decides what should happen at Porton then, given the assurance that it is the best advice, I would back that decision. It is the duty of anyone in such a matter to back the Government of the day, after they have taken every possible care to ensure that they have the best advice.

Mr. Dalyell: Would the hon. Gentleman accept from me that I would never presume on this issue to make out myself, or anyone who thinks like me, to be more moral than he? This is not a question of one M.P. being more moral than another. I have to ask him a question. Do I understand him to say that, after all the serious reflection he has given to this subject, he thinks that we ought to have some kind of offensive capability, either in chemical or biological weapons? I ask that as a straight question. I am not in any way sneering.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: What I am saying is that I think that what Porton has been allowed by way of devising methods of using these ghastly things has been dangerously small, because we cannot fully comprehend in many of these matters how to cope with what will arise unless we know the way these things are sent to us. I hope that it is not too great an over-simplification.
I am not suggesting that we should at once arm the whole of B.A.O.R.—with

chemical weapons on every armoured car. What I am saying is that I hope that Porton can be assured of sufficient funds to do what ought to be done to keep the Cabinet and everyone else as fully informed as possible on how this ghastly business could begin. This is what I fear is not adequate at the moment. The need to make it more adequate than I believe it to be is the result of the increasing evidence east of the Iron Curtain that chemical warfare weapons could be used all too easily.
I hope that I have said enough on this subject, which is a pretty beastly one. I remember going on an anti-gas course to Winterbourne Gunner when I was a young officer. A splendid officer came from India to join the course and he did not do very well in the passing-in examination. He was sent for by the chief instructor who said, "Don't you know anything about this subject?" The officer replied, "No. I have just come back from India, and out there we think the whole thing is rather unsporting." We all think it is unsporting, but it is a subject which we must treat seriously in the modern world unless we are to endanger our nation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) and I have kept in close touch since my original visit to Porton. I know the immense amount of trouble he takes to look after the best interests of his constituents. If he wants any support for his constituents in the work they do, he knows that he has a friend in me. I shall do my best to ensure that that side is not forgotten and is not under-nourished through lack of the funds necessary for day-to-day work.
The east of Suez policy decision was taken before the exercise that should have been carried out had been completed at the Defence Operational Analysis Establishment at West Byfleet. The evidence is in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I asked representatives of the Establishment, in Question 1987:
Had you completed this study.
on strategic movement
… before the decision about east of Suez was made?
The answer was:
We had completed the study up to 1975. It was very much an examination of our


capability with current requirements. We were then going on to consider the post-1975 situation in which a completely new set of equipments was possible, both in terms of aircraft and ships. Before the decision was made the pre-1975 study was available in the Ministry of Defence and had been sent to the Secretary of State before the decision was made.
I then asked:
In the light of the studies you made of this particular problem, do you feel that had the result of all your studies been known at the time possibly the decision might have been different?
Very rightly, the D.O.A.E. witnesses said that 'they could not answer that. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Leeds, East can answer it. For him to take a decision as big as the decision about troops east of Suez without having completed that study was almost criminal. I am surprised that he is not here.
Whilst I agree that operational analysis must not become the total dictator of policy, it should be used as a means of ensuring that policy decisions are taken on the best scientific evidence available after the most careful consideration has been given to the alternatives. This is what the right hon. Gentleman did not enable the Establishment to complete before he took such an enormously important decision as that of pulling out east of Suez.
We must realise that two factors are involved. The first is that the operation analysis should be completed before big decisions are taken. Secondly, it is important that the operational analysts are made aware that it is no good their thinking that they have indeterminate time in which to work, and that no decisions will be taken unless they are finished. Perhaps that was one of the factors that influenced the right hon. Member for Leeds, East when he was Secretary of State for Defence.
The previous Chief Scientist at the Ministry of Defence took the view that operation analysis has an important part in the whole sphere of defence research and development. But at the same time it should not become the total time dictator or the dictator of total policy. It should be used sensibly and effectively by those responsible and by those who can benefit most. Although we invented this process of analysis, the Americans are must farther ahead than we are; but we are now trying to catch up again.
I was interested in the evidence given by the D.O.A.E. at West Byfleet, because I was able to compare that evidence with what I saw at "think tanks" in the United States. I served on a Subcommittee of the Select Committee with the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) and Brian Parkyn, who was then the hon. Member for Bedford and we had an interesting visit to a number of "think tanks", one of which was run by the Rank Corporation. I agree that one can have too many "think tanks", but they can be of enormous value. I hope that it will ensure that my hon. Friend in his new office will be able to guide defence procurement a great deal better than has been the case in the past

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: I should like to congratulate the members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. If anyone wonders what M.P.s do with their time, he has only to point to this 575-page Report which we are debating this evening.
I believe that the less technical Members like myself owe a great deal to those on that Committee who devote long hours to these extremely important subjects. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) who has taken care of the interests of Porton Down. I know of no Member in this House who cares more deeply for the issues of national security than he.
Porton has been in existence for just over half a century. That establishment came into being in the middle of the First War as the result of German gas attacks on the Western Front. The initials C.D.D.E.—and I wish sometimes that we could get away from initials—stand for the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment, and hard alongside it is its younger sister the M.R.E., the micro-biological research establishment. That establishment saw the light of day in the 1939–45 war. It was a small unit set up by Sir Paul Fildes. He was a talented son of a talented father, Sir Luke Fildes, who painted the portrait of Edward VII that hangs in the corridor and whose able son lives in my constituency and is himself a Royal portrait painter of no less distinction.
Reading the Report, I was impressed by the extremely frank and open way in which the directors of the two Porton establishments answered the questions of the Select Committee. At Porton, it has been possible to hold meetings of international scientists, including representatives from Czechoslovakia and Russia. We have not been able to show them all our files, of course. The world is not yet ready for that. But it has been possible to have meaningful exchanges of views here. Equally, some of our people at Porton have been to reciprocal conferences in Czechoslovakia.
When I first came to represent Salisbury in this House, I confess that I was opposed to the idea of having open days at Porton. I felt that to admit the public and the Press to the place would merely stimulate the controversy which surrounds it, much of it ill-informed. How wrong I was. Open days have been held since then. They have proved to be an unqualified success, and they have served to dispel a host of misconceptions. By the same token, the fact that members of the Select Committee took the trouble to travel to Porton and the fact that we are able to debate their Report equally helps to dispel the mystery and misunderstandings which for far too long have enveloped the establishments at Porton.
Thanks to our colleagues who served on the Select Committee, the House has been able to learn of the dedicated work of the scientific staff thtere, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely paid tribute. I feel that through the pages of this Report, we have been admitted to our own open day at Porton, and I am grateful for that.
No Member of this House who has studied the evidence in the Report can any longer question the vital importance to us of what goes on in the establishments there. So long as world Powers arm themselves with chemicals and bacteriological weapons, so long must Her Majesty's Government give supreme attention to the counter-measures and to protecting our people.
The Select Committee has helped to show that our scientists in their white coats and their air-conditioned laboratoties fulfil every bit as vital a part in our

defensive system as the uniformed Services. They also serve, and it is my purpose in intervening briefly in this debate to thank the Select Committee for giving them this recognition.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) all concentrated parts of their speeches on chemical warfare and the research establishments at Porton and elsewhere.
I was a little confused by what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely meant exactly in that part of his speech. He raised an interesting point with which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal when he asked under which part of the procurement organisation chemical warfare is to come. My hon. Friend said, quite rightly, that we in this country should concentrate more than we have in the past on means of defending ourselves against attack by chemical warfare. The countries in the Eastern bloc are armed with these weapons, and they could use them against us. We have to know what they are, and we have to be prepared to take counter-measures to protect our civilian population and our military forces. That is the job of the research establishments at Porton and elsewhere.
I understood my hon. Friend to go on to say that not only should we be doing that, and not only should the Cabinet be giving greater attention to it, but that we should also have a capability of second strike with the very weapons with which we are attacked.
If we need a second strike capability in chemical warfare as in nuclear warfare, the question which arises is how it should proceed. Which of the controllers will be responsible for the project? Who will be responsible for its production? At the moment Porton is purely carrying out research and development into the methods of chemical warfare and defence against it. I hope that my hon. Friend will indicate whether it will stay under the Chief Executive who is in charge of all research and development and, should the Cabinet decide to have a second strike capability, as I believe we should, who


will be responsible and where will the responsibility for production lie?
This is one of the finest and most logical White Papers I have read for a long time. It needs reading more than once to understand it fully, but, having done so, the work which Mr. Rayner has done and which has been put forward by the Government in the White Paper is worthwhile and of tremendously high value.
The chain of command and the logical definition of responsibility and the line management concept in this procurement organisation is an absolute necessity. Speaking as a soldier in past years, I know only too well the frustrations one had when told that it took seven to 10 years to develop new types of systems and weapons. Then, by the time it took to get into the hands of the services, particularly the Army, it was out of date and often too expensive to manufacture quickly in sufficient quantity. This is in peace-time.
I am sure that this new type of organisation, if it functions efficiently and manages to overcome some of the inherent built-in difficulties, will overcome those problems.
The point about Treasury and political control is valid and important. The Report is a little hazy on how the political control of this organisation will operate. There is a tremendous network of Committees dealing with these very problems. The Report mentions these Committees in paragraphs 97 and 98. I wonder at what stage and where we shall find that the political control is exerted.
The Report suggests that this organisation has to be self-generating; it has to generate its own expertise and keep its own staff within it, although some of them will be going outside and working in the services and the civil industries. It has to be self-generating in its management expertise, apart from scientific expertise. It could become the kind of organisation which takes control of the machine rather than controlled by the political machine which, in our democracy, is the final word.
It is essential to avoid a proliferation of Committees. One welcomes the suggestion in paragraph 98 of the abolition of the Weapons Development Committee, and so on. However, we should avoid a

proliferation of either Ministerial or expert committees. Yet at the same time it is essential that political control should be finally and utterly kept, and seen to be kept, in the hands of the Cabinet and those responsible for the policy of the Government of the day.
I turn next to the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely voiced his misgivings about Treasury control and the frustrating effect that Treasury officials can have in research and development. His misgivings are understandable and I share his distrust. But it is essential that the Treasury be in on the decision-making at every level. After all, the Treasury provides the funds which will be allocated through the chain of command. We do not want to see the Treasury frustrating the aims and objectives of any of the four controllerates—and here my hon. Friend the Minister of State is in a key position—but it is essential for it to be brought along by him not in the day-to-day functioning but in the broad outline of the policy and operation of the new organisation. Otherwise, there may be conflicts with the Treasury. We have seen over the years that, where there is such conflict, it is the Chancellor that wins.
On the whole, I welcome the line of command proposed and the paragraphs devoted in the White Paper to the setting up of the four separate controllerates—land, sea, air, and guided weapons and electronic systems.
I welcome the co-operation—an essential part of any reorganisation—that is to take place between the new procurement organisation and the suppliers once a project has got out of the development stage to production. There must be close liaison between the controllerates and directors of the projects and the suppliers.
I could not agree more with that part of the White Paper which says that future policy must be for the Government to get cash discount from suppliers because they pay their bills promptly, rather than having to work out methods of offset payments, with the lapses of time which have occurred in the past and which have been one of the monstrous aspects to arise in these matters over the years.
Doubt has been expressed about how the new set-up will work. I welcome the suggestion in the White Paper that the


personnel of the controllerates should spend a certain amount of time with suppliers. What are the criteria to be on which the director of a project, who will be virtually autonomous once the project has been decided and will be responsible throughout its life, will decide which supplier shall produce the weapon.
I welcome also in principle the proposal that more research and development should be done by the supplying industries rather than by the organisation itself. It should be farmed out more than it is. But this raises the question of security and security screening. How far does my hon. Friend intend this to go? What is his view of farming out? Does he agree in principle with the research and development aspect of weaponry being farmed out rather than being wholly confined to the environs of the organisation itself? Presumably, the suppliers undertaking such research and development will include the cost in the end price. A careful check of costings must be made to see that they do not get out of line.
How will the division be made between the private civilian and the purely military application of these research and development costs? Presumably this R and D will be confined to a few of the major companies, particularly in the electronics industry, for one cannot imagine many of the smaller firms being involved.
I welcome the White Paper and I am glad to hear that Mr. Rayner has been appointed Chief Executive. One is bound to have some reservations about the autonomous controllerates with their own managements and finance down to the project director. They must not become isolated. Great care must be taken to see that there is cross-fertilisation, and the control by the Chief Executive must be overall and continuing to ensure that the new system does not become the master rather than the servant.
I am sure that, on the whole, the Government have taken the right approach. I am pleased that they are going ahead so quickly, so that, from the users' point of view, the Services will benefit. By cutting delay between demand for new weaponry systems and actual delivery for use in the field, the Services are bound

to benefit. This delay has been a great drawback in the past. If, by introducing this new system, we can make a cut in this delay, a great improvement in the defence of the nation will result.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am becoming accustomed to finding myself the tail-end Charlie in these debates. It is a station that calls for perhaps greatest precision and accuracy, and I gladly accept the challenge.
I welcome the White Paper and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on his appearance on the Front Bench. I consider it particularly important that, in his Ministerial functions, he is responsible for overseeing operational requirements, which, in the policy sense, is valuable in taking the workload off my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It will also help us at Question Time, when hon. Members who are interested in industrial and military matters will hope to establish a personal rapport with him.
I have certain criticisms to make of the contribution of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) who, as usual, took the opportunity to swipe at the single Service boards. He said that the White Paper represented a battle lost to the traditionalists and that it was a blow to functionalism in the administration of defence. I disagree with him totally. Paragraph 73 of the White Paper makes the position clear when it says:
The procurement organisation must, in our view, be a single entity and research, development and production resources must likewise be treated as a unity within the Ministry of Defence and in relation to the Treasury and the Civil Service Department. In these circumstances, individual Controllers must not, in our view, be liable to such direction from individual Service Boards as to conflict with their task in the procurement organisation or override their responsibilities to the Chief Executive.
In fact, their supreme responsibility is made clear. Mr. Rayner was right to stress also that they should liaise fully with the Service boards in helping them to meet their requirements.
I am, however, somewhat apprehensive about the future of the guided weapons and electronic systems controllerate and the responsibility for


nuclear weapons. Mr. Rayner expresses the hope that this controllerate might logically pass to the Navy systems controllerate. His argument is that nuclear propulsion and nuclear weapons should go hand in hand. I do not think that, necessarily, it should be assumed at this stage that nuclear weapons should be the sole prerogative of the Navy and that strategic nuclear delivery should be entirely in the Navy's hands. As far as can be foreseen, this is very much an inter-Service responsibility, and I am not sure that that recommendation is entirely a happy one.
As for personnel, everyone welcomes the greater specialisation which Mr. Rayner recommends for those in the procurement career structure. This is admirable, but there are degrees of anomaly also. There will be the difficulty, which is alluded to particularly in paragraph 14, of reconciling the needs of specialisation, and the encouragement of broader managerial qualities at the same time, with the wider considerations of Service careers. I am not entirely certain that the high fliers in the Services will want to be in the procurement business too long, because inevitably they will be out of the main stream of command responsibilities which fit them for the very highest positions in the Services.
That said, I welcome the recommendation that more exchange postings between the procurement organisation and industry should be encouraged, and, above all, that experience in the operational requirements branches in particular should be regarded as a good preparation for management functions in the procurment executive.
I turn to one or two points of detail. It is absolutely right that Rayner should lay such emphasis on reliability and maintainability as being an important assessment of the total cost of a project. Increasingly, with modern aerospace weapon systems in particular, the manufacturers have been making great advances. In my experience, the Jaguar is a classic project of this kind, in which, in terms of reliability and maintainability, immense advances have been made. But while mentioning Jaguar I cannot overlook the question of collaborative projects altogether. Nor does Mr. Rayner, who has a few almost caustic things to

say about them. He regards them as one of the aspects which are almost insoluble, because they are not readily responsive to normal commercial criteria. One can understand that. If one studies the Elstub Report one finds his fears and anxieties reinforced. In Elstub there are a number of criticisms of collaborative projects which we should bear in mind. I recall them to the House. The first was on the question of export sales:
Export sales are, however, no less important for such projects than if they were undertaken nationally.
In other words, there is the temptation to assume that just because we have a large ready-made captive market in a collaborative project, we can overlook export potential. In this regard I emphasise that this new Procurement Executive must look first of all, when it gets going, to the task of selling Jaguar, and later M.R.C.A. to a wider market than, in the first case, the R.A.F. and the French Air Force and Navy—and, in the case of M.R.C.A., to the German, British and Italian Air Forces. In collaborative projects one must look to wider sales than the captive market.
Broadly, I welcome the recommendations of the Rayner Report and the Government's decision to implement them. One last big anxiety is the whole question of interface between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Defence Department and the procurement executive. The fact that the Controller of Air Systems, for example, will have a responsibility also to the Department of Trade and Industry, and that this might ultimately have to be resolved at Ministerial level on the aerospace board, exemplifies that Rayner himself realised that this anxiety could well be real.
I hope that my Ministerial Friend will give me a little more encouragement on this particular aspect. I warmly commend the White Paper.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: It is always very useful for the House to have opportunities of discussing matters of Ministerial structure. They do not come very often and it is useful that we have had this opportunity today, although it is a pity that it should be on this day when we know that, for


various reasons, the number of hon. Members likely to attend is very small; and that has been our experience. Most of the contributions to the debate today have been directly related to the recommendations of the Select Committee's Report or to the White Paper based on the Rayner Report.
In speaking from this side of the House in winding-up the debate, I will stick closely to these two Reports. I was rather disappointed, therefore, that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) introduced a number of quite contentious defence matters into the debate. I am not disputing that these are not contentious and very important matters to be debated, but I wonder whether today's debate is the right forum. I was sorry that he criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) for not being present today. This has not been a conspicuously well-attended debate but my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), who has taken over defence responsibilities on this side of the House, at some considerable personal inconvenience to himself, attended a major part of the debate. I felt that I should say that in fairness to my right hon. Friend.
We are extremely grateful to the Select Committee for the Report that we had from them. Unfortunately, to some extent it is outdated because it has not been debated in the two years since it was presented to the House. But those hon. Gentlemen who have particularly drawn attention to the educative functions of the Select Committee have put their finger on the value which the Select Committee brings to the House. The recommendations in any particular instance can often be matters of controversy, though not in every report; and sometimes different hon. Members can have different ideas about the worth-whileness of recommendations of any Select Committee. But what a Select Committee does very well for the Members who sit on it and the wider audience it obtains on publication of its Report is to provide a vast mass of information in a form which is not available elsewhere.
This Select Committee is a very good example of that kind of service which

a Select Committee gives to the House. I am very sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who was Chairman of the Select Committee, has not been able to attend; as he explained to me, he had a pressing engagement elsewhere. I am sure that we would have looked forward very much to his comments on the Report.
As far as the Procurement Executive is concerned, I do not propose to add a great deal to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen). He spoke with very recent experience of the Ministry of Defence. I spent rather less than 18 months there, but that was between 1964 and 1966, and I imagine that if the change of pace that was going on then has continued at anything like the same rate until the present time, my own experience of that Ministry must be very much out of date.
I feel—I hope without sounding patronising—that the Rayner Committee Report, in most of its ideas about reorganisation, was very sensible; and there were some particular aspects of reorganisation of the system, such as the greater emphasis on project management, which I would very enthusiastically support. But, of course, there are still awkwardnesses and there are still difficulties in the organisation. I agree very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton said about the relationship of the Service Board, because what has happened here is quite contrary to the central thinking of the Rayner Committee Report; and there is no doubt that this represents a weakness in the new organisation which the general principles of the organisation were meant to avoid. There is a number of other difficulties of organisation, particularly the relationship with the Department of Trade and Industry, about which I hope to say more a little later.
The important point I want to make about the reorganisation is that it will have to be judged in the last analysis by the results that it produces. None of us can be absolutely sure that any organisation in such a complicated field will inevitably give us the results that we set out to achieve. We must remind ourselves of what those objectives are, because we are dealing with a sphere of activity that costs a considerable sum of


money. The Procurement Executive is not concerned only with defence research and development but with the whole field of procurement beyond that, so that the total annual expenditure is about £1,000 million. The number of qualified scientists and engineers engaged is very substantial and represents a significant proportion of the total stock of qualified scientists and engineers available in the United Kingdom. Therefore, value for money in the widest context must be one of the objectives of the new Procurement Executive.
That raises a whole number of different issues that were dealt with today in varying degrees of detail, such as the whole selection process, the way in which projects are chosen, the point at which a definite decision is taken to go ahead with a project, and the point at which refinements or improvements to a project are frozen so that there is no additional expenditure on them, in some cases wasteful. All these matters will be very much the concern of the new Procurement Executive.
I thought that some of the criticisms in the Select Committee Report about the then Ministry of Defence system, of D.R.C., O.R.C. and W.T.C., were, in my limited experience rather exaggerated, because what I thought was an extremely complicated organisation in practice worked a good deal better than one would have expected. Nevertheless, I would not try to defend that system against all others. I believe that the new arrangements outlined in the Rayner Report and the White Paper give opportunities for improving the system of Committees in the Ministry of Defence very considerably. Many of these matters can be more effectively handled, but matters have improved considerably in the Ministry of Defence over the last five or six years.
The Report also raises the question of the rationalisation of the research establishments. It is always as well to remind ourselves of what the Secretary of State said in giving evidence to the Select Committee, that unless there was a positive defence objective for any particular research establishment it was not worth keeping. It was not a question of keeping a defence establishment because there might be industrial spin-off. That is a very important incidental advantage for the nation, but from the

defence point of view the important point was to produce a definite and worth-while defence objective, and I agree absolutely with that. It has certain implications for the civil aerospace industry to which I shall come later. We shall have to see what the new Procurement Executive does in the rationalisation of defence establishments.
Similarly, the whole question of relations with industry is dealt with in the White Paper in a way with which hon. Gentlemen would agree. Nothing there is very original. I am not being critical, but similar criticisms of the present system have been made many times before. They were made in evidence to the Select Committee and by the Select Committee. The important thing now is to see whether the new organisation will manage to eliminate rather more successfully than anything we have had so far the various deficiencies which all of us, even those with a most limited experience, know to exist. My view is that the ideas on which the new Defence Procurement Executive is based seem genuinely and generally very sensible. One wishes it well in the important duties it is to take on.
On the question of civil aerospace, I must take a much more critical view of the Rayner Report. The Report is extremely well drafted, but when it deals with this question there is a rather significant deficiency in the order in which it deals with the relative questions of policy and technical and managerial responsibilities in Government. In paragraphs 115 to 118, the technical and managerial responsibilities are taken first and policy second. In my view, that is a significant deficiency which is not just a question of drafting. I agree almost absolutely with the analysis of the problem in paragraphs 117 and 118—the question of where policy responsibility should lie.
The point is made that, for the aerospace industries,
… the prime responsibility of the Defence Secretary is to provide the most effective defen;e capability possible within the defence budget.
Wider considerations naturally interest him incidentally and the comment is made that
… Government policy towards the aerospace industries should be, and be seen to be, an integral part of Government policy towards industry generally.


The point is also made
… that where the defence interest requires that a particular degree or kind of capability should be maintained … this should be clearly identifiable. This will only happen naturally, and the costs be borne on the defence budget where they belong, if the responsibility for sponsoring the aerospace industries lies outside the Ministry of Defence.
I agree with that analysis, and the conclusion is that the responsibility for the aerospace industries should pass to the Department of Trade and Industry. It is a sensible conclusion for another important reason—that the Ministry of Defence does not want to have responsibility for the aerospace industries as a whole. That is the last thing it wants.
I agree with the analysis of technical and managerial responsibility in paragraph 115, which shows that it is not possible to divide aerospace technology between civil and military applications from the management point of view. One need not elaborate that view, since it is well set out in paragraph 115.
But the conclusions of the Rayner Report, following its good analysis, were not the conclusions of the Rayner Committee at all. The Committee was told in its terms of reference, as it makes clear, that the organisation for managing aerospace industries in civil and military applications should go to the Ministry of Defence. This was not the conclusion which it argued; it was given within these terms of reference. Maybe there are good arguments for it, but it was not argued out in the Rayner Report because the Government made the decision before the Committee was established and incorporated the decision in the Committee's terms of reference.
We have to ask whether the decision is right. I know, if only from my limited experience at the Ministry of Defence, the considerable dissatisfacton within that Ministry at the arrangement whereby the old Ministry of Technology and the Ministry of Aviation, as it was in my day, dealt with the management of the aerospace programme, where both policy and management were within an outside Ministry.
It is important to identify why we had that dissatisfaction. First of all, it was mainly on policy matters rather than on management. The Ministry of Defence

used to feel, and I think still feels, that it was bearing some of the financial and other burdens of the sponsorship of the aerospace industry which was the responsibility of a Ministry other than the Ministry of Defence. The policy under the White Paper still remains with an outside Ministry, the Department of Trade and Industry. So far I do not see, if the policy considerations remain the same, that the Ministry of Defence is any better from the policy point of view under this arrangement than under the old arrangement.
I believe that the policy will change and that there will be a greater defence orientation in the policy. That will be inevitable because the hand of the Ministry of Defence in this organisation is very much strengthened as against the hand of the Department of Trade and Industry. I do not think that, taking the aerospace industry as a whole, this is a change which I would welcome.
The second cause of dissatisfaction within the Ministry of Defence was to do with the management of the programme. The solution in the Rayner Report, with respect, simply transfers the problem elsewhere. The problem at the moment is with the Ministry of Defence and under this arrangement, on the civil aerospace side, it simply becomes the problem of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Rayner Report and the Government see the danger of that because the Report recommends, from paragraph 122 onwards, certain safeguards which it feels will allow the Department of Trade and Industry adequately to discharge the duties which it has for policy towards that industry.
It might seem, therefore, that if we were simply transferring a problem from one Ministry to another it would balance out and from the point of view of Government organisation there would be neither a great deal gained nor a great deal lost. That is not true, and what we lose under this organisation is a separation of policy and management. This is put in the Rayner Report, and I gather the Government take the same view, as being a positive advantage.
It may be that in business sometimes it is a positive advantage to have this kind of separation. It is certainly not within my experience within government that if one separates at governmental,


ministerial level, responsibility for policy and management, one gets a satisfactory solution. What will inevitably happen is that there will be a weakening of the Department's responsibility for policy and a strengthening of the Department's responsibility for management. I see nothing in the arrangements recommended in the Rayner Report, nothing in the staffing arrangements, nothing in the Ministerial Aerospace Board—to which, incidentally, I attach a good deal less importance than many outside commentators have done—that will overcome the problem of the Department of Trade and Industry being weakened in this organisation and the Ministry of Defence being very much strengthened.
It was symptomatic of this that the Minister in his opening speech did not even mention these problems. He dealt exclusively with defence considerations and said nothing about this from the point of view of the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that these consequences will not happen, because they would be very bad for the aerospace industry.
Obviously we will look at the Procurement Executive and see how it works in practice. Personally I feel quite strongly that there are considerable dangers in the solution which the Government have adopted following the Rayner Report. This solution, if it means the strengthening of the Secretary of State for Defence as against his Ministerial colleague in the Department of Trade and Industry, will be damaging in a number of other ways, for example, relationships with industry and the balance between intra-mural and extra-mural expenditure, on which there is a good deal of common ground between hon. Members on both sides of the House as there was among the members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
To sum up, there are many parts of the Rayner Report which I unreservedly welcome. There are many other parts where the arguments are strong for the organisation which is being adopted and where one hopes the organisation will work well in practice. But there are other parts—and the relationship to the civil aerospace industry is predominantly one of these—where one must have certain apprehension about what is likely to happen under these new arrangements. One hopes that these apprehensions will

not be borne out in the event, but one rather feels that they will.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has said, this has been a useful debate although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said, we have had a fairly select gathering and this is disappointing. A number of contentious matters have been raised, and I do not want to enter the dispute between the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and the other members of the Select Committee about the quality of the Report. I disagree with what was said about the writing of the Report. It is not like a novel but, as an official document, it is abnormally well written. If my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely will forgive me, I will not enter into his vehement controversy with the Treasury. He has expressed his views strongly, and no doubt these will be noted.
As the hon. Member for Craigton complained that I had not mentioned the Department of Trade and Industry in my opening remarks, perhaps I should turn straight away to the points he made. I understood him to say that the case for putting the management of the aerospace industry under the Ministry of Defence was not argued in the Rayner Report but merely stated. If he will look at paragraph 115, he will see that is not so. The Report says that the civil and military side are very closely connected, and goes on

"… there is a substantial body of staff engaged on work that is simultaneously of significance to civil and military interests, and a further substantial section which moves from defence to civil work and back again in accordance with the fluctuating demands of the total Government programme. It would therefore be impracticable to segregate Government staff into two distinct elements, and uneconomic and otherwise undesirable to provide two independent and self-sufficient staffs."

Mr. Millan: I agree absolutely with all that, but that could be an argument for putting it, as it is, in the Department of Trade and Industry. The last sentence of the paragraph reads:
Under our terms of reference this organisation can only be under the Secretary of State for Defence.
That is what I was complaining about.

Mr. Gilmour: If the hon. Gentleman agrees with the rest of the Rayner Report, as I think he does, it follows that civil aviation must be where it is, otherwise we should go back to two Ministries, and the Rayner Report shows that two Ministries are impracticable. It therefore follows inexorably that the civil aerospace industry has to be where we have placed it. However, I appreciate that fears exist about this matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) explained.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence alluded to this point in the other place when he made it clear that when the interests of defence and policy for the aerospace industry do not coincide, the issue would go to the Aerospace Board. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no idea in the Ministry of Defence of in any way trying to "do down", belittle or cripple the work of the civil aviation side of aerospace.
Many of the speeches in this debate, particularly those by my hon. Friends the Members for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. Owen) mentioned research and development reorganisation. The hon. Member for Sutton said that he did not like the word "shrinkage". I agree with him, and I think that it is a word that should not be used. We will now have the great advantage that for the first time all these research establishments will be brought together under a single management, which will be of enormous benefit in seeing that they are adequately organised and equipped to do all the tasks that are required of them. One of the priority tasks of that management will be to prepare a plan of rationalisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), and also the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton, talked about the right balance between extra-mural and intramural work. This is an extremely complicated problem. The R. and D. establishments are an enormous national asset and contain a concentration of expertise and facilities which are the envy of a great many other countries; they have pioneered the development of hardware and techniques which probably could not have been developed by any

single industrial group. These advantages would not have been gained if the establishments had not existed as strong, independent institutions.
The Select Committee, Mr. Rayner, and the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), have commented that some of the establishments have played too great a part and industry too little. There undoubtedly is a danger that industry will not do the work if the Government do it for them, and firms that lean too heavily on Government will have an inadequate research and design base. We will have to take all these factors into consideration in order to get the best rationalisation that we can. The end result is likely to be a saving in manpower; but, as the Rayner Report makes clear, the primary object of any changes will be to get the organisation right. Economies will be the consequence rather than the aim and object of the exercise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon spoke of the relations with industry, and he is absolutely right when he says that there should be close consultation. We are not complacent about this matter. I agree that improvements can be made. There are frequent contacts with industry at all levels and the establishment of the National Defence Industries Council has given a formal channel at the higher level for these consultations.
My hon. Friend also asked me about A.W.R.E. The position is not quite as he stated it. It is said in paragraph 11 of the White Paper
The recommendation that responsibility for the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment should be transferred from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to the Secretary of State for Defence will be examined further in consultation with the Authority, with a view to seeing how best its functions can be rationalised with those of the other Defence Research and Development establishments.
I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that anything suggested will take place in full consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely gave the staff at Porton very high praise, which we all know that it deserves. My hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) and Derbyshire, West also paid their tributes to the staff. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely that for the


present, at least, it is better that this establishment should be under the Ministry of Defence and not under the Department of Health and Social Security. The defence interest is very great. Nevertheless, this matter is looked at regularly and will be kept under review.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West, the establishment comes under the Ministry of Defence as a whole in the general policy that it pursues, but, of course, it will be managed by the Procurement Executive.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely said, it has been the policy not only of the last Government but also of previous Governments not to have an offensive potential in chemical warfare. We review that policy periodically, but we have not considered it necessary to make a change. We do not see deterrence being based on the need to match every single potential enemy weapon by a similar weapon. But I assure my hon. Friend that the establishment at Porton is of the necessary strength to give the Cabinet the information which he thought that they ought to have. The establishment will continue to be kept at that strength.
The hon. Member for West Lothian asked whether we had abandoned operational analysis. My hon. Friend also stressed the importance of it. The answer is that we have not abandoned it. The review mentioned in the last Government's White Paper (Cmnd. 4236) is a continuous one. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is still taking place.
I was pleased to hear that the general proposals in the Rayner Report had the support of both Front Bench spokesmen opposite. I agree with the hon. Member for Sutton that we want a period of stability now. I hope that this will come. The hon. Gentleman asked about appointments. I can tell him that the emphasis of the organisation will be on professionalism and expertise. He asked whether the Service controllers were always to be Service men. I can give no undertaking about that, but, in the nature of things, for some time to come they are almost bound to be Service men.
I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the relationship between the Service controllers and the Service

Boards. The whole point of the Procurement Executive is that it is user-orientated. It is not giving the Services what the Procurement Executive thinks that they should have. We believe that it is the best way of giving the Services what they want.
The hon. Gentleman then got on his usual hobby horse about it being wrong to have single Service Ministers and Service Boards. However, it is greatly to the convenience of the Services to have single Ministers so that this House, the public and the Services know who is responsible for them, under the Secretary of State. If single Service Ministers led to disruption in the hon. Gentleman's day, I can assure him that they do not under this Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, Session 1968–69, on Defence Research (House of Commons Paper No 213), and of the White Paper, Government organisation for Defence Procurement and Civil Aerospace (Command Paper No. 4641).

Orders of the Day — RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION

Ordered,
That the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular enquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Clegg.]

Orders of the Day — JAMES HANRATTY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: In raising the case of lames Hanratty I do not want to be misunderstood. I was one of the handful of Members who raised the case of Timothy Evans. I raise this case in the same spirit. I am not concerned with the issue of capital punishment, or with the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. Above all,


I am not challenging the integrity of the administration of justice.
The Hanratty case was exceptional, as was that of Timothy Evans. It must be 18 years since I spoke in this House on the Evans case.
Anyone who has practised the law knows that it is impossible to devise a judicial system with absolute safeguards against mistake and error. The issue in the Hanratty case is whether there is a genuine possibility that there may have been such a mistake and whether grounds have been established for believing that there may have been a miscarriage of justice sufficient to warrant a public inquiry.
In this context, miscarriage of justice has a particular and limited connotation. We are not charged with the burden of establishing the innocence of James Hanratty. The case for an inquiry is whether, if information now available had been before the jury, it is reasonable to conclude that they would not have convicted James Hanratty.
If the case for an inquiry is conceded, I earnestly believe that it must be a public and judicial inquiry. It is an investigation into a conviction by a jury made in open court. If there is the possibility of any reflection upon that conviction, then I believe that the further consideration and the further evidence must be held equally openly. This is cardinal to the administration of justice and of special importance for three reasons.
First, while I fully recognise that there were exceptional circumstances in the Evans case, the Scott-Henderson inquiry did more than anything else to upset public confidence.
Secondly, whatever the relative merits of the continental inquisitorial system compared with our accusatory system, whether or not it is better to investigate the truth of a crime rather than the guilt or innocence of the accused, if, on balance, we regard our system as better, we have at the same time to recognise that there are some inherent dangers in concentrating on the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused. I believe that an essential safeguard against this danger is the possibility of a subsequent judicial inquiry.
Thirdly—I regard this as particularly important—if we are concerned about the independent integrity of British justice we should always strive to maintain the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. We should always be on guard against the executive trespassing on the functions of the judiciary; we should be on guard against officials, however well-intentioned, assuming judicial functions.
It is largely for these reasons that I press the Home Secretary to institute a public and judicial inquiry into the Hanratty case. I am not suggesting that the Home Secretary should institute such an inquiry, save in exceptional circumstances, but I suggest that those circumstances obtain in the Hanratty case. I would not dispute that successive Home Secretaries have given the case a tremendous amount of careful thought, and no doubt the present Home Secretary is doing so. I considered postponing the debate but, on second thoughts, believed that it would be better to put my point of view to him before he completed his consideration.
Moreover, I do not accept the right hon. Gentlman's replies at Question Time last week as altogether satisfactory. I got the impression that he regarded it as incumbent upon him to decide what I have emphasised is the responsibility of a judicial inquiry. What he has to decide is only whether there are sufficient exceptional circumstances and a strong enough prima facie case to warrant an inquiry. I thought that it was somewhat unsatisfactory also for him to say that his concern was to determine whether there were any new factors not previously known. That did not apply to the setting-up of the inquiry by Mr. Justice Brabin into the Evans case.
In any case, we do not know—it is one of the difficulties in dealing with the case—what factors the right hon. Gentleman knew before he received Mr. Paul Foot's book. The factors he should now be considering are, I believe, first, that there is considerable public anxiety about the Hanratty case. This has been demonstrated by the response to Mr. Foot's book. Last week, the Home Secretary himself said that the case gave rise to considerable public concern. This in itself provides for me sufficient grounds for an inquiry. The only way to allay that


public anxiety is to institute a public inquiry judicially conducted, and this is the primary responsibility of the Home Secretary.
The second factor is that the Home Office, I believe, is obliged to reconsider its own position. It has already stated its case against the holding of an inquiry and, indeed, has repeated it. Lord Brooke, when he was Home Secretary, gave it first, and it was repeated by Lord Stonham later in another place. The Home Office relies on the force of the prosecution's evidence of identification. I would not deny that it is important but, in the light of Mr. Foot's full account, I am sure that many people now share my serious reservations about it.
What must be borne in mind is what is not generally appreciated—that, surprisingly enough, evidence of identification is often unreliable. There have been several recent cases, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, in which identification has subsequently been disproved. The National Council for Civil Liberties in 1968 presented the Home Office with a list of over 15 cases of apparent false identification, and this was at any rate recognised by the Home Office to the extent that it issued a circular recommending certain precautions. Clearly, some of the precautions recommended in that circular—issued in 1969—were not followed in the Handatty case.
The Home Office said that, against the evidence of identification, the demand for an inquiry depended on Mr. Alphon's confession, which was spurious and contained nothing that could not have been known from the trial—in particular, that the location of the field was widely known at the time, that Mr. Alphon did not drive a car and that he had a complete alibi which was beyond challenge. But it now seems to me and I am sure to many people who have read the book that all these assertions are badly shaken by Mr. Paul Foot's book. The incident of the greyhound remains unscathed but even that has not the significance that Lord Brooke attributed to it.
In considering the attitude taken by the Home Office, there is also the question of the Rhyl alibi. On this, in 1967, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), the then Home Secretary, accepted that new factors had been brought forward, and

he appointed Chief Superintendent Nimmo to make investigations. After considering Superintendent Nimmo's reports, he decided that there was no further evidence which, if put before the jury, might have influenced the verdict.
I am sure that this was a carefully considered conclusion of the then Home Secretary on the very point which is, I believe, at issue. But as I have argued, the Home Secretary's examination should have been limited to the preliminary inquiry into whether there was a prima facie case for a public inquiry. Apart from this, I find it difficult not to agree with Mr. Paul Foot that the manner and nature of Superintendent Nimmo's inquiries were thoroughly unsatisfactory.
In the third place, as he has said, it is for the Home Secretary to consider whether there is any new material of substance which has now been presented. This, he has told us, is what he is doing. I can only comment that, without knowing what information the Home Office had before receiving Mr. Foot's book, it seems that Mr. Foot has provided some significant new material about some aspects of the case, providing greater cogency for the argument for an inquiry about the Rhyl alibi and about Mr. Alphon.
The Home Secretary must, I believe, consider whether, in the light of all the circumstances, the fit and proper course is to hold a public inquiry. Hitherto I have not been drawn into this case. In the Timothy Evans case I was especially intrigued by two incongruous factors. Early on I was told authoritatively and confidentially that Timothy Evans, a Roman Catholic, had protested his innocence to the end. I was also told that he was an inveterate liar. Oddly enough, I find these same factors colouring the case of James Hanratty.
But I have done no more than read Mr. Paul Foot's brilliantly powerful analysis. Of course, it is biased. Nevertheless, I feel satisfied—the burden is no greater than this—that Mr. Foot has established a strong prima facie case for a public inquiry.
When Lord Brooke, as Home Secretary, gave the Home Office's reasons for not holding such an inquiry, he also defined the attitude of the Home Office. He said:
If I thought that there was anything in this memorandum I have received, I would not


hesitate to appoint a public inquiry. Indeed, I go further than that. If I thought that on any reasonable view there could possibly be anything in it, I would welcome an independent investigation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1963; Vol. 682, c. 831.]
Whether or not the reader is personally persuaded by Mr. Foot's book, I do not think that any objective reader could deny that
on any reasonable view, there could possibly be anything in it.
Accepting the Home Office's criterion, I consider that the Home Secretary has no alternative but to institute an independent judicial inquiry.
I acknowledge at once all the difficulties, especially those caused by the lapse of time. I acknowledge the distress that this could occasion some people, but further evasion and procrastination will only aggravate public anxiety and suspicion. We must recognise the fact that Mr. Paul Foot's book has disturbed the public's conscience. I urge the Home Secretary, therefore, to allay that anxiety and to remove that suspicion, and, incidentally, to express his confidence in the judiciary by announcing, without much further delay, his decision to institute a public judicial inquiry.

10.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): May I say at once to the right hon. Gentleman that I fully appreciate the concern that has led him to raise this case tonight. I am sure that he will accept from me—indeed, it was almost anxiomatic in the words he used—that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is no less anxious than he is to be satisfied of the truth of this matter.
As long ago as August, 1963, the then Home Secretary, now Lord Brooke of Cumnor, speaking on a similar occasion in this House, said:
… few criminal cases in recent years have been so widely publicised as the one that we are now considering."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1963: Vol. 682, c. 823.]
In the years since then, a good deal more has been written and said about this case. Other aspects of the case have been ventilated. Earlier points have been enlarged upon and argued about. Statements have been made and retracted. I

emphasise that much careful thought has been given, as the right hon. Gentleman himself accepted, by the Home Office and by successive Home Secretaries to each of the various new decelopments in this case.
Before stating, as I propose to, the approach that my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary takes on these matters, it is right that I should remind the House on the background, because the background is an essential part of any approach to this matter at this time. While fresh facets of the case continue to be presented, it is not, I believe, having listened to the right hon. Gentleman's argument tonight, any part of his argument that he is bringing forward entirely new matters.
From time to time over the years attention has been drawn to many different points in this complex case, so that by now there are few aspects of it which have not in some way been either commented on, inquired into or considered. That is not to say that they have necessarily been settled to everyone's satisfaction; nor that we should regard the matter as thereby necessarily closed. The Home Secretary is always ready to consider fresh evidence and to listen to new arguments.
In examining the case for further consideration and inquiry, however, it is necessary that we should remember and take account of the very thorough consideration which the case has already received. Whatever views hon. Members may hold on the decisions of successive Home Secretaries in this matter, the House will, I am sure—and the right hon. Gentleman accepted this—accept that they were not reached lightly or, indeed, without the most careful and anxious thought.
Of course, it is right that there should be critical discussion as to whether the Minister came to a correct conclusion. But I do not believe that it is of any service to the case of those who are concerned at the possibility of a miscarriage of justice to suggest for a moment that the conclusions which have so far been reached were reached other than with due consideration.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House of the background. Hanratty was convicted and sentenced to death on


17th February, 1962, and his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 13th March. It then fell to the Home Secretary of the day, now Lord Butler, to decide whether there were grounds on which he could recommend a reprieve, and therefore the first Departmental examination of the case began.
Ministers who have previously spoken in debates on this case here and in another place, and on other cases, have remarked on the onerous burden which responsibility for the decision placed on Home Secretaries at that time. Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was, spoke of the load on the mind and the heart of any such decision. In accordance with normal practice all relevant facts which were known at the time and which might have any bearing on the careful decision that had to be taken were marshalled and examined by the Department and submitted to the Home Secretary for decision. After most careful consideration the then Home Secretary, Mr. Butler as he then was, decided that the law must take its course.
The following year, as a result of renewed representations, the case was again gone into very thoroughly by the next Home Secretary, the then Mr. Henry Brooke. In reply to a similar Adjournment debate on 2nd August, 1963, Mr. Brooke informed the House that on the facts available to him he could find nothing which caused him to doubt that Hanratty was rightly convicted and that he could find no grounds to justify the appointment of a public inquiry. In the course of that reply Mr. Brooke went into some details of the matters he had considered, including the suspicions that had been attached to the man who at that stage was referred to throughout the debate as "Mr. X" but who in the light of what has happened subsequently can now be identified as Mr. Peter Alphon.
In 1965 Lord Russell of Liverpool wrote a book on the case in which he concluded that the jury was not justified in its verdict and in August, 1966, he initiated a debate on this case in another place. By then it had fallen to another Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), to bring a fresh mind to bear on the intricacies of this case. Replying to that debate in another place

Lord Stonham referred to the difficulties attaching to the sort of public inquiry for which Lord Russell was asking and described the careful thought that the then Home Secretary had given and was still giving to the case.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, at that time attention was focusing especially on Hanratty's claim that he was in Rhyl on the date on which the murder took place. In the light of the material that had then been submitted to him the right hon. Member for Stechford decided to arrange for a senior police officer who had not previously had any connection with this case—that was Detective Chief Superintendent Nimmo, then with the Manchester City Police—to make a detailed investigation into the alibi.
In November, 1967, the right hon. Gentleman informed the House of the result of the investigations Mr. Nimmo had carried out. He said then that nothing had been found to strengthen the evidence called at the trial on Hanratty's behalf and there was no further evidence which if put before the jury might have influenced its verdict. He concluded therefore that there were no grounds for his taking any further action in the case.
Since then the case has continued to engage the attention of subsequent Home Secretaries. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) reviewed the case, I understand, with equally thorough care. I have recited that history, not to suggest for one moment that there is nothing more to be said, because as the right hon. Gentleman accepts, in a matter of such continuing concern the Home Secretary ought not and does not close his mind, but to explain the way in which any Home Secretary is bound to approach renewed representations for a further and public inquiry. As my right hon. Friend informed the House last week at Question Time, he is having a full analysis made of the latest publication by Mr. Paul Foot on the subject. What he will have to decide is whether it brings out any new factors not previously known which justify an inquiry at this stage.
As I have said, over the years there have been many examinations of the case. Different points have been raised, and many inquiries have been made. It would be wrong for anyone to think that


all the points marshalled in the new book are dramatic new revelations to which no thought has hitherto been given. Where matters have already been the subject of exhaustive inquiry which has proved negative, it would be misleading to re-open them, unless there were good reason to believe that facts hitherto concealed could yet be brought to light. What we have now to consider first, therefore, is whether any new facts have been presented which have not already been fully considered and into which new inquiries should be instituted, and whether the balance of argument in the case merits a further opening up of old lines of inquiry.
I remind the House of what the Home Secretary's function must be. A good deal of space in the book is devoted to rehearsals of the evidence before the trial court and the author's evaluation. That is relevant, but only in so far as it bears on what has since come to light. The trial of criminal cases is a matter for the courts, and the decision on the evidence adduced is one for the jury. It is not for the Home Secretary to revalue what was before the jury and to presume to interfere because he thinks, without having had the benefit of hearing the witnesses under examination and cross-examination, that he might have reached a different verdict. That is an approach that the Home Secretary cannot and will not adopt.
The approach of my right hon. Friend must be to see whether new factors have come to light which were not before the jury then, and which, had they been before it, might have led to a different decision.
There is on the Order Paper a Motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) and others which argues the desirability of a public inquiry on the ground that the jury would not have reached the same verdict if it had been in possession of evidence which has since become available. It is that which I believe to be the right approach and that is what the

Home Secretary must now assess—the weight and significance of those matters which a jury was not in a position to take into account.

Mr. Willey: I accept that it is new evidence which was not before the jury which demands consideration, but if there should be a prima facie case for serious consideration, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that should be the function of a judicial tribunal, because of the very point he has made, that what we are dealing with is a conviction made in open court by the jury?

Mr. Carlisle: Of course, I accept that if the Home Secretary is satisfied that there is a prima facie case he would be right to institute an inquiry. The point I wanted to make is that a decision on whether there is a prima facie case must be based on new evidence that was not available to the jury.
I have deliberately and advisedly refrained from making any comment on the details of the case or its merits, and I do not intend to do so. As my right hon. Friend has indicated, all the matters that have lately been raised are being carefully analysed, and it would not be right for me to express any opinion until all the many considerations have been fully digested and considered. This is a grave matter, and the House will realise the care that is needed to consider it.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, the last Home Secretary, speaking last week from his own experience of the matter, recognised that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must be allowed time to consider it. My right hon. Friend has said that he will make up his mind as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman and the House may be assured that in doing so he will take very carefully into account all the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.